CAR_Public/160526.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 26, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 105



                            Headlines


A&F STAFFING: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Lawrence" Suit Says
ACT INC: Must Defend Against Yaakov's Unwanted Fax Suit
ADVANCE AUTO: Sued Over Website's Unfair Terms and Conditions
AFFILIATED FOODS: Court Certifies "Morgan" Class
AK STEEL: Claims by Indirect Steel Purchasers Still Pending

ALLERGAN PLC: "Providence" Sues Over Overpriced Drugs
ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Bushansky" Class Action
ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Luck" Class Action
ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Haynes" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Still Faces Securities Class Action

AMGEN INC: Settlement Reached in Onyx Litigation
AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 19
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Parties Settled Caremark Action
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Consolidated 8 Maryland Cases
AUTOLIV, INC: Settles with Truck and Equipment Dealers Class

AUTOLIV, INC: 4 Antitrust Class Actions Pending in Canada
B. BRAUN: To Pay Up to $7.8MM for Selling Contaminated Syringes
BANCORPSOUTH, INC: Has Agreement to Settle N.D. Fla. Action
BANCORPSOUTH, INC: No Class Certified in Tennessee Action
BANKRATE INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $20MM

BRAVO BRIO: "Husein" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
BUFFALO WILD: Suit by Former Employees Ongoing
C. R. BARD: Class Suit Pending Over Hernia Product
C. R. BARD: Update on Women's Health Product Claims
C. R. BARD: Update on Filter Product Claims

CANADA: May 31 Veterans Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CARESCOPE LLC: Abstention Doctrine Not Applicable in Torres Suit
CENERGY INTERNATIONAL: "Derrick" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Salary
CLEAN HARBORS: Petition to Remove "Gibson" Suit Filed
CLIFFS NATURAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for June 30

CLIFFS NATURAL: "Rosenberg" Settlement Has Final Court OK
COLORADO: DOC Faces "Atkerson" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
COLORADO: DOC Faces "Lujan" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
CR ENGLAND: "Fozard" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
CRST VAN: Can Recoup $4.7MM Legal Fees From EEOC, Court Rules

DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS: "Garcia" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay
DEL TACO: "Tomasulo" Plaintiff Mulls Amended Complaint
DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in Calif. Managers' Suit
DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in Calif. Hourly Employees' Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports

DOW CHEMICAL: Settles Plutonium Claims for $375 Million
DURHAM SCHOOL: Faces "Shann" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EXPEDIA, INC: HomeAway.com Faces "Arnold" Suit in Texas
EXPEDIA, INC: HomeAway.com Faces "Seim" Suit in Texas
EXTREME NETWORKS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Filed

EXXONMOBIL: Challenges Virgin Islands AG's Subpoena in Tex. Court
FACEBOOK INC: Faces KBC Asset Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
FAY SERVICING: Faces "Bowles" Class Suit in District New Jersey
FERROGLOBE PLC: Anticipates Further Discussions with Insurers
FIRST NIAGARA: Has Deal to Settle KeyCorp Merger Class Action

FIRSTMERIT CORP: 5 Lawsuits Filed by Shareholders
FITBIT INC: Investors Group Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
FLY LEASING: Faces Gerald Margolis Action in New York
FORD MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Broken Spark Plugs
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Powershift Transmission

FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: "Cappello" Sues Over Underfunded Pension Plan
GANNETT CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Clark" Action Claims
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 20
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Hialeah Case
GODADDY INC: Johnson & Vines Files False Advertising Class Action

GRO-WELL BRANDS: Judge Narrows Claims in "McMillan" Suit
GTX CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Over Construction Contract Breach
HARRIS AND ZIDE: "Harper" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Case
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss

HF FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Facing Class Action by Former Employee
INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Action Against BOH Holdings
INGRAM MICRO: Faces "Scheiner" Class Action in California
INSPERITY, INC: Worksite Employee Class Action Pending

INSULET CORP: Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. Action Ongoing
INTEL CORP: Motion for Reconsideration Scheduled in May 2016
INTEL CORP: McAfee Shareholder Litigation Ongoing
IXIA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 29
KENNEDY KRIEGER: "Myers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: EoTech Class Actions in Early Stages
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Underway in Securities Action
LACOSTE USA: Sued Over the Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
LAMBCORP: Texas Homeowners File Class Action Over Fraudulent Fees
LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Still Pending

LEGEND UPPER: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif.
LG DISPLAY: Reached Settlement Except as to Motorola and Costco
LG DISPLAY: TFT-LCD Class Suits in Canada Still Pending
LG DISPLAY: Decision in Israel Class Action Under Appeal

LIBERTY OILFIELD: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: District Court Order Under Appeal
M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Confidential Resolution in "Alvarez"
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs Seek $2 Million Reimbursement
MAXWELL & MORGAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Malcolm" Suit Claims

MCS CLAIM: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Action Claims
MEDICENTRES: July 7 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
MERCEDEZ BENZ: "Ferrari" Amended Complaint Due May 31
MILLER ENERGY: "Hull" Suit Alleges Accounting and Reporting Fraud
MOBILEIRON, INC: Class Suit Dismissed; No Sum Paid

MOBILEIRON, INC: Corrected Consolidated Complaint Filed
MOL GLOBAL: Preliminary Settlement Approval Sought
MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Counsel Does Not Violate Protective Order
NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Construction Contract Breach
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former Players File Concussion Class Actions

NATURAL HEALTH: Rosen Firm, Levi & Korsinsky Named Co-Lead Attys
NGU INC: Faces Win-Vent Suit Over Construction Contract Breach
NU SKIN: Final Settlement Approval Expected in Mid-2016
ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: $11-Mil. Class Action Deal Has Final OK
OUTERWALL INC: Still Defends "Piechur" Action in Illinois

PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Flo & Eddie Suit Remains Pending
PANDORA MEDIA: "Sheridan" Class Suits Remain Stayed
PANERA BREAD: Defending Class Suits by Former Employees
PAPA JOHNS: "Durling" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Recovery of Pay Cuts
PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Nieto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lordi" Suit Says
RCI PLBG: Faces "Faulkner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RCN TELECOM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Portman" Suit Claims
REGEIS CARE: Faces "Richardson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RBS HOLDINGS: Distribution in Madoff Class Action Approved

ROTONDA GOLF: Faces "Werman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SANDISK CORP: Summary Judgment Granted in Ritz Camera Action
SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Antitrust Action
SANDISK CORP: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought
SANDISK CORP: Merger Class Action Closed

SANGHA SUNDIP SINGH: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SANGHA SUNDIP SINGH: "Juarez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
SERVICE CORPORATION: "Samborksy" Case Sent to Arbitration
SINGING RIVER: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss Due June 20

SOUTHERN COPPER: Denies Allegations in "Lacey" Case
ST JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: "Garbaccio" Sues Over Underfunded Pension
STONEWOOD ALE HOUSE: "Marin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SUNRUN INC: "Cohen" Securities Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
SUNRUN INC: "Nunez" Class Suit Removed to N. Dist. California

SUNRUN INC: "Mancy" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
SUNRUN INC: "Pytel" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
TAMPA FOOD: "Evering" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
TARGET CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
TENET HEALTHCARE: Court Re-Opened Discovery in Antitrust Action

TEREX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought
TOTAL COMMUNITY: "Gallagher" Sues Over Data Breach
TRANSAM TRUCKING: May Amend Answers to "Blair" Wage & Hour Suit
UNITED ONLINE: Faces "Akerman" Suit Over Proposed B. Riley Merger
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Defend Against Sexual Assault by Drivers

UNITED STATES: Judge Rules on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Sued Over Defective Timing Belt Tensioning Systems
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Approval of Class Action Settlement
WILFRED AMERICAN: 2nd Cir. Remands "Salazar" Suit
XENCOR, INC: Paid Plaintiff's $950,000 Legal Award

* Activist Organization Ready to Fight SA Mining Companies
* Banks May Sue Federal Government Over New CFPB Consumer Rules
* Corporate Defendants Rethink Class Action Litigation Strategies
* South African Gold Mining Industry Face $3.4BB Silicosis Claims
* U.S. Supreme Court & NLRB Arbitration, Waiver Clauses Clash


                            *********


A&F STAFFING: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Lawrence" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maggi Lawrence, Jesus Mejia, and Allan Mares v. A&F Staffing d/b/a
Secret Garden Management Company, Best Food Pizza, Inc., Prosolare
USA, Inc., Riverside PJ ENT Inc., Daniel Millan, Mohammed Asif,
Wasif Atta, Ram Gurm, Ahmad Eletreby, Silvia Paola Aquino, Juan
Carlos Aquino, and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 5:16-cv-00977 (C.D.
Cal., May 12, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' systematic
misclassification of pizza delivery drivers as independent
contractors and failure to pay them minimum wage and overtime.

The Defendants operate seven Papa John's Pizza franchise locations
in Riverside, Moreno Valley, Norco and Corona, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      EAdam M. Rose, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
      23901 Calabasas Road, #2072
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 225-9040
      Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
      E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
      MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM
      445 Broad Hollow Road, #400
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (212) 991-8960
      Facsimile: (212) 991-8952
      E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com


ACT INC: Must Defend Against Yaakov's Unwanted Fax Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the District of Massachusetts
denied defendant's motions in the case BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING
VALLEY, Plaintiff, v. ACT, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:12-
CV-40088-TSH (D. Mass.)

Plaintiff is a religious corporation located in New York. On July
30, 2012, plaintiff brought suit against ACT, Inc. (ACT) on its
own behalf and seeking to represent three classes of people.

Plaintiff alleges that it received unsolicited faxes from ACT,
which did not contain opt-out notices, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA)
and a similar New York law, N.Y. General Business Law Section 396-
aa. Plaintiff further alleges that from July 30, 2008 through July
30, 2012 ACT either negligently or knowingly sent thousands of
unsolicited or solicited faxes without opt-out notices to fax
machines belonging to people throughout the United States, and
from July 30, 2009 through July 30, 2012 either negligently or
knowingly sent thousands of unsolicited or solicited faxes without
opt-out notices to fax machines belonging to people throughout New
York. Plaintiff claims that each of these faxes violated the TCPA,
or both the TCPA and section 396-aa.

Defendant made an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the amount of $4800 and mad a
motion to deposit with the court and to dismiss the case for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Hillman denied defendant's motion to deposit funds and
defendant's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Hillman's memorandum and order dated May 10, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/tMkxGffrom Leagle.com.

Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
     Bellin & Associates LLC
     85 Miles Ave.
     White Plains, NY 20606
     Telephone: 914-358-5345

Plaintiff is also represented by:

     Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
     Law Office of Matthew P. McCue
     340 Union Avenue
     Framingham, MA 01702
     Telephone: 508-620-1166

ACT, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     Michael K. Callan, Esq.
     Robert L. Leonard, Esq.
     Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, P.C.
     One Monarch Place, Suite 1900
     1414 Main Street
     Springfield, MA 01144-1900
     Telephone: 413-733-3111
     Facsimile: 413-734-3910


ADVANCE AUTO: Sued Over Website's Unfair Terms and Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Russel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02685-PGS-
DEA (D.N.J., May 12, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' unfair,
one-sided provisions of the Terms and Conditions in the website,
shop.advanceautoparts.com.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. markets automotive products and
accessories throughout the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald H. Clark, Esq.
      William S. Peck, Esq.
      Mark W. Morris, Esq.
      CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
      811 Sixteenth Avenue
      Belnar, NJ 07719
      Telephone: (732) 443-0333
      Facsimile: (732) 894-9647


AFFILIATED FOODS: Court Certifies "Morgan" Class
-------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Leon Holmes of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Complaint styled
BRENDA MORGAN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated; and DONNA KELLETT, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AFFILIATED FOODS SOUTHWEST, INC., Defendant, No.
4:15CV00296.

The parties must confer in good faith and submit an agreed-upon
date by which the opt-out form must be received. If the parties
cannot agree, they may submit separate dates, along with a
statement of their objections to the date proposed by the opposing
party.

The present action began as an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy
on July 10, 2009. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint,
alleging that Affiliated Foods violated the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by failing to give
employees at least sixty days advance notice of termination. To
preserve the limited estate assets, the parties agreed to stay the
adversary proceeding. The plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the
stay on February 27, 2015, which the bankruptcy judge granted on
April 27, 2015. Three days later, Affiliated Foods filed a motion
to withdraw the reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(d),
Bankruptcy Rule 5011, and Local Rule 83.1(c). Affiliated Foods
contended that this Court had no discretion but to withdraw the
reference and that even if it had discretion, the bankruptcy court
did not have the constitutional authority to enter a judgment on
the plaintiffs' WARN Act claim. The plaintiffs did not object to
withdrawing the reference and the motion was granted. Now, the
plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Affiliated Foods opposes class
certification, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated April 26, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/EcQVzH from Leagle.com.

Brenda Morgan, Plaintiff, is represented by Cade L. Cox, Esq. --
Cox, Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC, David Wayne Sterling,
Arkansas Department of Human Services, M. Vance McCrary, Esq. --
vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com -- The Gardner Firm, Mary E. Olsen,
Esq. -- molsen@thegardnerfirm.com -- The Gardner Firm, Melanie J.
McClure, Esq. -- Cox, Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC & Stuart
J. Miller, Esq.-- Lankenau & Miller, LLP.

Donna Kellett, Plaintiff, is represented by Cade L. Cox, Cox,
Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC, David Wayne Sterling, Arkansas
Department of Human Services, M. Vance McCrary, The Gardner Firm,
Mary E. Olsen, The Gardner Firm, Melanie J. McClure, Cox,
Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC & Stuart J. Miller, Lankenau &
Miller, LLP.

Affiliated Foods Southwest Inc, Defendant, is represented by Greta
Brouphy, Esq. -- gbrouphy@hellerdraper.com -- Heller Draper Hayden
Patrick & Horn, LLC, pro hac vice, Kerrilee Elizabeth Kobbeman,
Esq. -- Conner & Winters, LLP, Richard L. Cox, Esq. -- Attorney at
Law & Todd Patrick Lewis, Esq. -- Conner & Winters, LLP.

Richard L Cox, Trustee, is represented by Todd Patrick Lewis,
Conner & Winters, LLP.

                About Affiliated Foods Southwest

Little Rock, Arkansas-based Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., and
its affiliates, including Shur-Valu Stamps, Inc., filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. E.D. Ark. Case No. 09-13178) on
May 5, 2009.  W. Michael Reif, Esq., at Dover Dixon Horne,
represented the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  The
Debtors estimated assets between $10 million and $50 million and
debts between $100 million and $500 million.

Rather than proceed with a disclosure statement and plan of
reorganization, both Affiliated Foods and ShurValu engaged in
an orderly liquidation followed by conversion to Chapter 7 on
August 13, 2009.  M. Randy Rice became the Chapter 7 trustee in
the ShurValu matter.  Mr. Rice, as the trustee in the ShurValu
case, later chose to put the wholly owned subsidiary --
Supermarket Investors, Inc. -- into a separate Chapter 7 on
October 13, 2009.  The court thereafter appointed Mr. Rice as the
trustee in the SII proceeding.

Richard Cox was named the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for
Affiliated Foods Southwest Inc.


AK STEEL: Claims by Indirect Steel Purchasers Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding 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 claims by indirect
purchaser plaintiff class members and direct purchaser class
members that have opted out of the class remain pending.

The Company said, "In September and October 2008 and again in July
2010, several companies filed purported class actions in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against nine steel manufacturers, including us. The case numbers
for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633,
08CV5700, 08CV5942, 08CV6197 and 10CV04236. On December 28, 2010,
another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in
the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and in
March 2012 it was transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois. The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are
companies that purport to have purchased steel products, directly
or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they claim
to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United
States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least
as early as January 2005. The complaints allege that the defendant
steel producers have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to
restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain
artificially high prices for steel products in the United States.

The Company said, "In March 2014, we reached an agreement with the
direct purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims
asserted against us, subject to certain court approvals".

"According to that settlement, we agreed to pay $5.8 to the
plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange for the members
of that class to completely release all claims. We continue to
believe that the claims made against us lack any merit, but we
elected to enter the settlement to avoid the ongoing expense of
defending ourself in this protracted and expensive antitrust
litigation. We provided notice of the proposed settlement to
members of the settlement class. After several class members
received the notice, they elected to opt out of the class
settlement."

"Following a fairness hearing, on October 21, 2014 the Court
entered an order and judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing all of the direct plaintiffs' claims against us with
prejudice as to the settlement class.

"In 2014, we recorded a charge for the amount of the tentative
settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and paid that
amount into an escrow account, which has now been disbursed in
accordance with the order that approved the settlement.

"At this time, we do not have adequate information available to
determine that a loss is probable or to reliably or accurately
estimate the potential loss, if any, with respect to the remaining
indirect purchaser plaintiff class members and any direct
purchaser class members that have opted out of the class
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Remaining
Plaintiffs"). Because we have been unable to determine that a
potential loss in this case for the Remaining Plaintiffs is
probable or estimable, we have not recorded an accrual for this
matter. If our assumptions used to evaluate a probable or
estimable loss for the Remaining Plaintiffs prove to be incorrect
or change, we may be required to record a charge for their
claims."


ALLERGAN PLC: "Providence" Sues Over Overpriced Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------
The City of Providence, Rhode Island, Plaintiff, V. Allergan PLC,
Actavis PLC, Lannett Company, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc. and West-Ward
Pharmaceutical Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00214-M-PAS
(N.D. Ga., May 12, 2016), seeks treble damages and injunctive
relief for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton
Antitrust Act.

Providence alleges that the manufacturers of generic Digoxin and
Doxycycline entered into an unlawful agreement to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price of these generic drugs.
Doxycycline is a fairly common antibiotic used to treat a wide
variety of infections.

Providence has a self-insured health and welfare plan, and
purchases, pays, and/or provides reimbursement for its employees,
retirees and/or plan beneficiaries.

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

West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices at 401 Industrial Way West, Eatontown,
New Jersey. West-Ward is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma
Pharmacueticals PLC.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vincent L. Greene, Esq.
     Robert J. McConnell, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     321 South Main Street, 2nd Fl.
     Providence, RI 02903
     Tel: (401) 457-7730
     Fax: (401) 457-7708


ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Bushansky" Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint
captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Alliance Fiber Optic Products,
Inc., et al. Case No. 16-CV-294245 was filed on April 22, 2016, in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara naming as
defendants the Company, its Board of Directors, Corning and Merger
Sub. This action purports to be a class action brought by a
stockholder alleging, among other things, that the Company's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
Merger Agreement, and that the Company, Corning and Merger Sub
aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed
transaction or to rescind the transaction in the event it is
consummated.

Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. (the "Company") was
incorporated in California on December 12, 1995 and reincorporated
in Delaware on October 19, 2000. The Company designs, manufactures
and markets fiber optic components for communications equipment
manufacturers. The Company's headquarters are located in
Sunnyvale, California, and it has operations in Taiwan and China.


ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Luck" Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint
captioned Rudy Luck v. Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-CV-294413 was filed on April 27, 2016, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara naming as
defendants the Company, its Board of Directors, Corning and
Apricot. Similarly to the Bushansky action referenced above, this
action purports to be a class action brought by a stockholder
alleging, among other things, that the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
Agreement, and that Corning and Merger Sub aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among
other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to
rescind the transaction in the event it is consummated.

Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. (the "Company") was
incorporated in California on December 12, 1995 and reincorporated
in Delaware on October 19, 2000. The Company designs, manufactures
and markets fiber optic components for communications equipment
manufacturers. The Company's headquarters are located in
Sunnyvale, California, and it has operations in Taiwan and China.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Haynes" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Haynes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Interstate LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03295 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2016),
seeks actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees,
and such other and further relief resulting from violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Allied Interstate is in the business of debt collection and
attempted to collect supposed debt from the Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialler without
prior express consent and incurred a charge for those calls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Phone: 877-206-4741
      Fax: 866-633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Still Faces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. 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 securities class action lawsuit.

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

The Court subsequently appointed the Pension Fund for the
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council
35 and the Annuity Fund for the International Union of Painters
and Allied Trades District Council 35 as Lead Plaintiffs.  On
January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint which added Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant,
and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. securities between April 25, 2013 and December 21,
2014 and an unspecified amount of damages. Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the suit on March 23, 2015.

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

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


AMGEN INC: Settlement Reached in Onyx Litigation
------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs and the Onyx director
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed a notice of settlement
with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Mateo on March 2, 2016 for an immaterial amount, and the
settlement remains subject to finalization and approval by the
court.

Amgen markets therapeutics for supportive cancer care,
inflammation, nephrology, and bone health.


AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the defendants in the case, In re Amgen
Inc. Securities Litigation, in this federal class action have
filed motions for summary judgment which are set for hearing on
May 23, 2016. The trial date has been set for July 19, 2016.

Amgen markets therapeutics for supportive cancer care,
inflammation, nephrology, and bone health.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Parties Settled Caremark Action
-------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties
have settled a class action lawsuit related to Caremark Rx in
principle, subject to formal documentation and court approval.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the
second-filed intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-
filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was
expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current
actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999
settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance
coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known
of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.
They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12,
2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the
other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was
denied on February 27, 2015. The matter has been remanded to the
trial court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits.
On November 24, 2015, the trial court ruled that the defendants
had a duty to disclose the amount of insurance available at the
settlement approval hearings and that the defendants breached that
duty. On February 22, 2016, the court rescheduled the trial date
to May 16, 2016.  Thereafter, the parties settled this matter in
principle, subject to formal documentation and court approval. We
have accrued our current estimate of loss with respect to this
litigation.


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Consolidated 8 Maryland Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Armour Residential Reit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has
issued an order consolidating eight Maryland cases into one
action, captioned In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp.
Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designating
counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Tender Offer and Merger (collectively, the
"Transactions"): (1) Stourbridge Investments Ltd. v. ARMOUR
Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), filed
March 8, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland;
(2) Timothy Lenell v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al., (Case
No. 2016 CA 000164), filed March 8, 2016 in the Circuit Court for
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for Indian River County, Florida;
(3) Alexander Vartanov v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 24-C-16-001593), filed March 10, 2016, in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (4) Robert Curley v. ARMOUR
Residential REIT, Inc. et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001659, filed
March 14, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland;
(5) Antonio Rado and Craig and Amanda Hosler v. ARMOUR Residential
REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001684), filed March 15, 2016
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (6) Curtis Heid
v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-
001706), filed March 16, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland; (7) Robert Aivasian v. ARMOUR Residential REIT,
Inc., et. al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001808), filed March 22, 2016 in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (8) Neil Harmon v.
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001812),
filed March 22, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland; and (9) Benjamin C. Washington, et al. v. ARMOUR
Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001829), filed
March 23, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.

All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's
board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and Acquisition as defendants. The Lenell, Curley,
Heid and Harmon suits also name ACM as an additional defendant.
All suits except for the Harmon suit also name JAVELIN as an
additional defendant. The lawsuits were brought by purported
holders of JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and on behalf
of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders,
including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly
value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of
JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against
conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information
about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding
and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately
solicit other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and
erected unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The
suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. On April 25, 2016, the
court issued an order consolidating eight Maryland cases into one
action, captioned In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp.
Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designating
counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel.

"On April 6, 2016 we completed our acquisition of all of the
outstanding common stock of JAVELIN pursuant the Transactions, for
cash consideration of $85.2 million. Subsequently JAVELIN became a
wholly-owned subsidiary of ARMOUR. The acquisition expands and
diversifies our investment portfolio. JAVELIN's complementary
assets provide us with investment opportunities in Non-Agency
MBS," the Company said.

Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants
believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are without merit
and intends to defend such claims vigorously; however, there can
be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual
Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these lawsuits to
which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any such
litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary
damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of
former stockholders of JAVELIN, and the cost of defending the
litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Such
litigation could also substantially divert the attention of the
Individual Defendants and ARMOUR's, JAVELIN's and ACM's management
and their resources in general.

Due to the preliminary nature of all nine suits, ARMOUR is not
able at this time to estimate their outcome.

Armour Residential Reit, Inc. is a Maryland corporation formed to
invest in and manage a leveraged portfolio of MBS and mortgage
loans.


AUTOLIV, INC: Settles with Truck and Equipment Dealers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has
reached an agreement to settle with the truck and equipment
dealers class for a non-material amount.

The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the
Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors were
named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust
class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015.
Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were
consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the
Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported
classes -- direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and, as of
the filing of the last class action in June 2015, truck and
equipment dealers -- who purchased occupant safety systems or
components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases
or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through
purchases of replacement parts.

More information on the MDL is available at:

                http://www.autopartsclass.com/index

In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered
into separate settlement agreements with representatives of the
three classes of plaintiffs then pending in the MDL. Pursuant to
the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay:

      $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class,
       $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and
      $19 million to the end-payor settlement class,

for a total of $65 million.

This amount was expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In
exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the
settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims regarding
their U.S. purchases that were or could have been asserted on
behalf of the three classes in the MDL.

In January 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the
direct purchaser class settlement, which had been reduced to
approximately $35.5 million because of opt-outs, and in December
2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the auto dealer
class settlement. A final fairness hearing for the end-payor class
settlement was scheduled for May 11, 2016.

Two individuals and one insurer have opted-out of all of the
pending end-payor class settlements, including the Company's
settlement. The insurer has informed the settling defendants that
it intends to pursue claims as an indirect purchaser of
replacement parts. The class settlements do not resolve any claims
of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the
unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who
are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states
and municipalities.

In March 2015, the Company, without admitting any liability,
reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve
certain direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S.
antitrust claims that were not covered by the direct purchaser
class settlement. The total amount of these additional settlements
was $81 million. Autoliv expensed during the first quarter of 2015
approximately $77 million as a result of these additional
settlements, net of existing amounts that had been accrued in
2014.

In April 2016, the Company reached an agreement to settle with the
truck and equipment dealers class for a non-material amount. The
settlement is subject to court approval following notice to the
class and the opportunity for class members to object to or opt
out of the settlement.

Interim Liaison Counsel for the Proposed EndPayor Plaintiff
Classes:

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     Devon P. Allard, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
     Rochester, Michigan 48307
     Telephone: (248) 841-2200
     Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
     E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
             dpa@@millerlawpc.com

Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Proposed End-Payor Plaintiff
Classes:


     Steven N. Williams, Esq.
     Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq.
     Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
     COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
     San Francisco Airport Office Center
     840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
     Burlingame, CA 94010
     Telephone: (650) 697-6000
     Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
     E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
             dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com
             etran@cpmlegal.com

          - and -

     Hollis Salzman, Esq.
     Bernard Persky, Esq.
     William V. Reiss, Esq.
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 980-7400
     Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
     E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
             bpersky@robinskaplan.com
             wreiss@robinskaplan.com

          - and -

     Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
     Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
     Telephone: (310) 789-3100
     Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
     E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
             ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

     Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
     Omar Ochoa, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     901 Main Street, Suite 5100
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Telephone: (214) 754-1900
     Facsimile: (214)754-1933
     E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com
             oochoa@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

     Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 651-9366
     Facsimile: (713) 651-6666
     E-mail: clangham@susmangodfrey.com

Autoliv is represented by:

     Peter Kontio, Esq.
     Alston & Bird
     1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 4000
     Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
     Tel: 404-881-7000
     Fax: 404-253-9690

          - and -

     Joanne Geha Swanson, Esq.
     Fred K. Herrmann, Esq.
     Dwayne D. Stresman, Esq.
     Kerr Russell & Weber
     500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2500
     Detroit, MI 48226-3406
     Tel: 313-961-0200


AUTOLIV, INC: 4 Antitrust Class Actions Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the remaining four
antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan
Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M.
Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court
of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and
Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et
al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina
in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian
cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct
and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. The Company
believes that a loss is probable with respect to these Canadian
antitrust cases and accrued an amount for the period ended March
31, 2016 related to these claims that is not material to the
Company's results of operations. There is currently no timeline
for class certification or discovery in the Canadian occupant
safety systems class actions. These actions have been stayed
pending proceedings in certain earlier-filed auto parts cases. The
Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate
outcome of Canadian antitrust cases.


B. BRAUN: To Pay Up to $7.8MM for Selling Contaminated Syringes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that federal prosecutors say a drug
and medical device manufacturer has agreed to pay up to $7.8
million for selling contaminated syringes.

Authorities announced on May 18 that B. Braun will avoid criminal
charges in exchange for implementing procedures to improve
oversight of its suppliers.  The company will pay $4.8 million in
penalties and forfeited profits, plus up to $3 million in
restitution.

The settlement comes in response to the sale of contaminated
syringes that prosecutors say led to an outbreak of bacterial
infections and at least five deaths.  The B. Braun-branded
syringes were manufactured by another firm.

B. Braun says it's committed to patient safety and has agreed to
undertake compliance measures related to monitoring of third-party
manufacturers.

The company is based in Melsungen, Germany.  Its U.S. headquarters
are in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.


BANCORPSOUTH, INC: Has Agreement to Settle N.D. Fla. Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on January 5, 2016,
the Bank entered into an agreement to settle a class action
lawsuit filed on May 18, 2010 by an Arkansas customer of the Bank
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
The suit challenged the manner in which overdraft fees were
charged and the policies related to the posting order of debit
card and ATM transactions. The suit also made a claim under
Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff was seeking
to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief.
As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded an expense of
$16.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, representing amounts
to be paid in connection with the settlement net amounts the
Company had already accrued for this legal proceeding in previous
periods.  The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and
final court approval. Pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily
approving the settlement, in the first quarter of 2016 the amounts
accrued for settlement were paid into settlement escrow funds. The
Company can provide no assurance that such approval will occur in
any specific time frame or at all.


BANCORPSOUTH, INC: No Class Certified in Tennessee Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no class has been
certified in a class action lawsuit in Tennessee.

On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  The complaint has subsequently been amended to add
the former President and Chief Operating Officer.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerning
the Company's expectation that it would be able to close two
merger transactions within a specified time period and the
Company's compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money
laundering requirements.

On July 10, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims concerning
the Company's expectations about the closing of the mergers.  The
plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of
damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other
equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.  No class
has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management
cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company.  Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate
resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation,
management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this
lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, consolidated financial position or results of
operations.


BANKRATE INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $20MM
-------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc. on May 17 disclosed that it has reached a proposed
agreement, subject to Court approval, to settle the private
securities class action pending against the Company and certain
current and former officers of the Company.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bankrate would pay a
total of $20 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all
claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Bankrate stock between October 27, 2011 and October 9,
2014.  The proposed settlement further provides that Bankrate
denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability.  Approximately 70%
of the settlement fund is expected to be paid from insurance
proceeds.

If this proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice to
the Class members will be sent with information regarding the
allocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund and
instructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on the
Settlement Fund.

                      About Bankrate, Inc.

Bankrate is an online publisher, aggregator, and distributor of
personal finance content.  Bankrate aggregates large scale
audiences of in-market consumers by providing them with
proprietary, fully researched, comprehensive, independent and
objective personal finance and related editorial content across
multiple vertical categories including mortgages, deposits, credit
cards, senior care and other categories, such as retirement,
automobile loans, and taxes.  Its flagship sites Bankrate.com,
CreditCards.com, and Caring.com are leading destinations in each
of their respective verticals and connect its audience with
financial service and senior care providers and other contextually
relevant advertisers.  Bankrate also develops and provides
content, tools, web services and co-branded websites to over 100
online partners, including some of the most trusted and frequently
visited personal finance sites such as Yahoo!, CNBC, Investopedia
and MarketWatch.  In addition, Bankrate licenses editorial content
to leading news organizations such as The Wall Street Journal, USA
Today, and The New York Times.


BRAVO BRIO: "Husein" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Mamdooh Husein, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00435-DW (W.D. Mo., May 14, 2016),
seeks unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and expert fees, and all such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a server/bartender for the Defendant's
restaurant located at 502 Nichols Rd, Kansas City, MO 64112. Bravo
Brio Restaurant Group operates upscale Italian restaurants named
"Brio."

Defendant allegedly denied minimum and overtime pay to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Hodgson, Esq.
     THE EMPLOYEE & LABOR LAW GROUP OF KANSAS CITY, LLC
     3699 SW Pryor Rd.
     Lee's Summit, MO 64082
     Tel: (816) 945-2122
     Fax: (816) 945-2120
     Email: mike@elgkc.com

          - and -

     Mark A. Jess, Esq.
     Christie Jess, Esq.
     John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. JESS, LLC
     Kansas City Livestock Exchange Building
     1600 Genessee, Suite 842
     Kansas City, MO 64102-5639
     Email: mark.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com
            christie.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com
            john.z@employeerightslawfirm.com


BUFFALO WILD: Suit by Former Employees Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit by two former employees.

The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees
(the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New York
state law against us in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York. The claim alleges that we have a
policy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensation
in part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligible for
tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation of the
FLSA and New York state law. We intend to vigorously defend this
lawsuit. We believe a loss is reasonably possible, but we are
currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of loss."

As of March 27, 2016, Buffalo Wild Wings owned and operated 603
company-owned restaurants, including 596 Buffalo Wild Wings(R), 5
R TacoTM, and 2 PizzaRev(R) restaurants in the United States and
Canada.  Buffalo Wild Wings also franchised an additional 587
restaurants, including 580 Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants and 7 R
Taco restaurants.


C. R. BARD: Class Suit Pending Over Hernia Product
--------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, 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,
approximately 40 federal and 60 state lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 100 plaintiffs, as well as one
putative class action in the United States, are currently pending
against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and
certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the
"Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain
sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in
December 2005.

In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently,
other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL stopped
accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014. As of March 31,
2016, all but one of the putative class actions pending against
the company were dismissed. The remaining putative class action
pending against the company has not been certified and seeks: (i)
medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive
damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or
(v) attorneys' fees. In April 2014, a settlement was reached with
respect to the three putative Canadian class actions within
amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately 40 of
the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately
40 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.

The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia
Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in
principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the
settlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certain
conditions, including requirements for participation in the
proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In
addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation. The company expects additional trials of Hernia
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. The company
cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia
Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not
have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Update on Women's Health Product Claims
---------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, 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,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 12,875 plaintiffs are currently pending against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the
company's surgical continence products for women. With respect to
a majority of these lawsuits, the company believes that two
subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to
Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company, have
an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to
any product defect liability.

In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic
regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation. In addition, five putative class actions in the United
States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed
against the company, and a limited number of other claims have
been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The
foregoing lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class
actions and other claims, together with claims that have settled
or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to
settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health
Product Claims". The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek
damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products.
The putative class actions, none of which has been certified,
seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii)
punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation;
and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in one Canadian putative class action. In March
2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to resolve all
Canadian putative class actions, with the exception of a Quebec
class action, within amounts previously recorded by the company.
The company expects administration of those settlements to take
place over the next several quarters.

In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving
solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "WV District
Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits
involving all women's surgical continence products that are
manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a
state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted
in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million.
On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in
November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the
California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on
February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest
and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts
previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL
commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the
company of approximately $2 million, which was upheld by the
Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016.

The company does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are
representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health Product
Claims. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WV District
Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional
300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the "WHP Pre-Trial
Orders") (the timing for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre-
Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related
defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and
continuing through the second quarter of 2015.

In February 2015, the WV District Court appointed a Special Master
to assist with settlement resolution. In June 2015, the WV
District Court issued an order staying the requirement to prepare
a significant portion of the cases covered by the WHP Pre-Trial
Orders, which stay could be modified at the court's discretion.
The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional cost in
future periods in defending Women's Health Product Claims. The WV
District Court may also order that the company prepare additional
cases for trial, which could result in material additional costs
in future periods.

As of March 31, 2016, the company reached agreements or agreements
in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 6,845
Women's Health Product Claims, including approximately: 560 during
2014 and 6,285 during 2015. The company believes that these
Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's
indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and
agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown
claims held by various plaintiffs' law firms, which have not been
included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the
first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to
certain conditions, including requirements for participation in
the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of
plaintiffs. The company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may include
additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement
efforts, the company anticipates additional trials over the next
12 months. In addition, one or more possible consolidated trials
may occur in the future.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement, Medtronic agreed to take
responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's
Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the
company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the company has
paid Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements.
The company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer
responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product
Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreement does not
resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect
to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. As
part of the agreement, Medtronic and the company agreed to dismiss
without prejudice their previously filed litigation with respect
to Medtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the company.

The approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first
paragraph of this section does not include approximately 660
generic complaints involving women's health products where the
company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints,
determine whether any of those cases involve the company's women's
health products. In addition, the approximate number of lawsuits
set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include
approximately 1,070 claims that have been threatened against the
company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In
addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature
and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. During
the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs'
law firms, the company has learned, and may in future periods
learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled or
unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the company. While the company continues to engage in discussions
with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Women's Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously
defend the Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle,
including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that
the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse
effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Update on Filter Product Claims
-------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, 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,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 375 plaintiffs are currently pending against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena
cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims"). In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-
District Litigation ("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-
District Litigation for all federal Filter Product Claims (the
"IVC Filter MDL") in the District of Arizona. There are
approximately 345 lawsuits that have been, or shortly will be,
transferred to the IVC Filter MDL. The remaining approximately 30
lawsuits are pending in various state courts across the country.

In March 2016, a Canadian class action was filed against the
company in Quebec. The first Filter Product Claim trial was
completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the company.
During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized
settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product
Claims and made payments with respect to such claims within the
amounts previously recorded by the company. The approximate number
of lawsuits set forth above do not include approximately 75 claims
that have been threatened against the company but for which
complaints have not yet been filed.

In addition, the company has limited information regarding the
nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims.
The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in
future periods learn additional information regarding other
unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could
materially impact the company's estimate of the number of claims
or lawsuits against the company.

The company expects that additional trials of Filter Product
Claims may take place over the next 12 months. While the company
intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any
assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a
material adverse effect on the company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

The company designs, develops, manufactures, packages, distributes
and sells medical, surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices.


CANADA: May 31 Veterans Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Toth v. Her Majesty the Queen
Court No. T-1068-14

The Federal Court has certified the case as a class action.  If
you are a former member of the Canadian Forces who was entitled to
receive Earnings Loss Benefit or Canadian Forces Income Support
Benefit, or a war veteran who was entitled to receive War Veterans
Allowance, and the amount of your benefits were reduced because of
disability payments under the Pension Act, you may be a member of
the class.  If you are a spouse, dependant, survivor, or orphan of
an individual entitled to receive one or more of these benefits,
you may also be a member of the class.  If the action succeeds or
is settled, your entitlement will depend on your individual
circumstances.

WHAT IS THE CLASS ACTION ABOUT?

The new Veterans Charter created two benefits payable to qualified
Canadian Forces members, veterans and their families: Earnings
Loss Benefit ("ELB") and Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit
("CFIS").

Individuals who were eligible for, applied for, or received a
disability pension under the Pension Act before June 1, 2006, and
who received ELB or CFIS, had the amount of their disability
pension deducted from their ELB and/or CFIS payments.  Similarly,
recipients of War Veterans Allowance ("WVA") payments under the
War Veterans Allowance Act had the amount of their disability
payments deducted from their WVA on or after April 17, 1985.

The class action seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
deduction of disability benefits from ELB, CFIS and WVA was
discriminatory on the basis of disability contrary to s. 15 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The class action seeks a
refund of all disability benefits deducted and/or damages.

WHO ARE THE CLASS MEMBERS?

The Federal Court has defined the class as follows:

(a) all Canadian Forces members and veterans, and their spouses,
dependants, survivors, and orphans who received a reduced Earnings
Loss Benefit or Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit between
April 1, 2006 and May 29, 2012, or received no benefit at all
during that time, because of the deduction of disability benefit
entitlements under the Pension Act; and

(b) all veterans, their spouses, dependants, survivors, and
orphans who, between April 17, 1985 and May 29, 2012, received a
reduced allowance under the War Veterans Act or did not receive a
veterans allowance at all because of the deduction of disability
benefit entitlements under the Pension Act.

The person who brought the lawsuit and who is a class member and
the representative plaintiff is Raymond Michael Toth c/o Malcolm
Ruby, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, 100 King St. W., Suite 1600,
Toronto, ON, M5X 1G5

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO TAKE PART?

All class members have the right to participate in the class
action.  You are automatically included in the class action unless
you opt-out of participating.  You do not need to do anything if
you wish to participate.  If you wish to opt-out you must do so by
completing an opt-out notice available from Gowling WLG (Canada)
LLP.  Your opt-out notice must be received no later than May 31,
2016.  If you opt-out, you will not be affected by any decision
the Court makes on the common issues in the class action, and will
not be eligible to receive any payment from a settlement or
judgment in favor of the class.

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP can be reached at:
100 King St. W., Suite 1600, Toronto, ON, M5X 1G5
Attn: Malcolm Ruby
Tel: 416-862-4314
Fax: 416-862-7661
Email: Veterans@gowlingWLG.com

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP can help you confirm whether you are a
class member.  When contacting Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP please
provide as much of the following as possible:

-- Your name, address, telephone and/or email
-- The dates of your service in the Canadian Forces
-- The date upon which you commenced receiving ELB, CFIS, or WVA.
-- The amount by which your ELB, CFIS or WVA was reduced by your
disability benefits.

DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING?

You do not need to pay any legal fees directly out of your pocket.
If the case is unsuccessful, no legal fees will be charged.  By
agreement with the representative plaintiff, a scaled legal fee of
up to 30% of any amount received may be paid to class counsel.  If
any settlement, judgment, or other benefits is obtained, class
counsel shall apply to the Federal Court for approval of its fees.

WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?
Malcolm Ruby and Erica Maidment, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, 100
King St. W., Suite 1600, Toronto, ON, M5X 1G5

Michael Drapeau and Joshua Juneau, Michael Drapeau Law Office, 192
Somerset West, Ottawa ON K2P 0J4

WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION?

For more information or to opt-out of the class action, please
contact Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP at the address above.


CARESCOPE LLC: Abstention Doctrine Not Applicable in Torres Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of
California denied defendants' motion to dismiss or alternatively
to stay proceedings in the case ANTONETT TORRES, on behalf of all
current and former employees and the State of California
Plaintiff, v. CARESCOPE, LLC (dba VOICE OF SENIORS), BIANCA VUE,
and FRANK SIM Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-00198-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.)

On August 22, 2014 Tamara Hayward filed a lawsuit against
Carescope LLC (Carescope) in Sacramento Superior Court (Hayward
Action) on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees.
Hayward alleges that defendant Carescope failed to pay in
conformance with California Labor Code and Wage Orders.

Plaintiff Antonett Torres filed an action against Carescope on
January 26, 2015, and filed a first amended complaint May 8, 2015,
(FAC). In the FAC plaintiff alleges defendants systematically
failed to pay plaintiff and similarly situated individuals, in
conformance with federal and state law. Plaintiff filed eight
claims for relief: 1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a) (FLSA)
Overtime Wages to Class; 2) failure to pay state minimum wages in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1194.2, 1197(a),
and Wage Orders; 3) failure to pay state overtime and double time
wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194,
and Wage Orders; 4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226,
226.6, and Wage Orders; 5) failure to pay all wages owed upon
discharge in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202,
and 203; 6) failure to allow inspection or copying of employee
records in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226(b),
1174, and 1175; 7) unfair competition in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.; and 8)
violation of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act pursuant
to Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq.

Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of caregivers. First,
plaintiff seeks to represent an opt-in FLSA Class of all
caregivers who have been employed by defendants within three years
of the filing of the original complaint. Second, plaintiff seeks
to represent a Rule 23 Class of all caregivers who are or have
been employed by defendants within four years of the filing of the
FAC.

Defendants contend that plaintiff's case should be dismissed or in
the alternative stayed pending the resolution of the Hayward
action pursuant to the Colorado River abstention doctrine.

Judge Nunley denied defendants' motion to dismiss or alternatively
to stay proceedings.

A copy of Judge Nunley's order dated May 10, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/BHWrAIfrom Leagle.com.

Antonett Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley S. Mallison --
stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- Eric Sebastian Trabucco --
etrabucco@themmlawfirm.com -- Hector Rodriguez Martinez --
hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Joseph Donald Sutton --
JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Marco A. Palau --
mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- at Mallison & Martinez

Defendants, represented by Sharon B. Futerman --
sharon.futerman@llg-law.com -- at Levangie Law Group


CENERGY INTERNATIONAL: "Derrick" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Salary
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Derrick, individually and for others similarly situated,
v. Cenergy International Services, LLC & Shell Oil Company, Case
No. 4:16-cv-01352 (S.D. Tex., May 12, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
wages and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Cenergy International Services LLC staffs out workers, including
the Plaintiff, to Shell Oil Company. Derrick worked for Defendants
as an HSE Tech, which Shell classifies as an independent
contractor or consultant, thus denying the conventional pay and
benefits as well as overtime premium.

Shell Oil Co., a subsidiary of UK-based Royal Dutch Shell, is
headquartered in Houston, Texas and is one of America's largest
oil and natural gas producers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

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


CLEAN HARBORS: Petition to Remove "Gibson" Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------
A petition has been filed seeking removal of the class action
lawsuit captioned Carla Gibson, Windell Lawson, Joyce Powell, Jeff
Rogers, Kathy Wood, and Lillie Woods, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Clean Harbors Environmental
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01035-SOH (W.D. Ark., May 9,
2016).

The case asserts personal injury claims.

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. provides hazardous
waste disposal, emergency response, lab chemical packing,
recycling, household hazardous waste, and vacuum services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen P. Roberts, Esq.
      P.O. Box 280
      Camden, AR 71701
      Telephone: (870) 836-5310
      Facsimile: (870) 836-9662
      E-mail: allen@aprobertslaw.com

         - and -

      David P. Price, Esq.
      PRICE LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 765
      Magnolia, AR 71754
      Telephone: (870) 234-4781
      Facsimile: (870) 234-7751
      E-mail: dplaw4781@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

      Phillip A. Stone, Esq.
      VICKERY & SMART, PLLC
      315 E. Main
      El Dorado, AR 71730
      Telephone: (870) 862-5565
      Facsimile: (870) 863-5889
      E-mail: pstone@southarklaw.com

         - and -

      Robert L. Depper Jr., Esq.
      DEPPER LAW FIRM
      101 West Main, Suite 200
      El Dorado, AR 71730-5685
      Telephone: (870) 862-5505
      Facsimile: (870) 862-7591
      E-mail: bdepper@suddenlinkmail.com

         - and -

      Samuel E. Ledbetter, Esq.
      MCMATH WOODS P.A.
      711 West Third Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 396-5410
      Facsimile: (501) 374-5118
      E-mail: sam@mcmathlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      John S. Cherry Jr., Esq.
      BARBER, MCCASKILL, JONES & HALE, P.A.
      400 West Capitol Ave., 2700 Regions Center
      Little Rock, AR 72201-3414
      Telephone: (501) 372-6175
      Facsimile: (501) 375-2802
      E-mail: jcherry@barberlawfirm.com


CLIFFS NATURAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for June 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources 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 settlement
hearing is currently scheduled for June 30, 2016, in the class
actin lawsuit by the Department of the Treasury of the State of
New Jersey and Its Division of Investment.

The Company said, "In May 2014, alleged purchasers of our common
shares filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio against us and certain former officers and
directors of the Company. The action is captioned Department of
the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and Its Division of
Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-
1031. As amended, the action asserts violations of the federal
securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements or
omissions during the period of March 14, 2012 to March 26, 2013,
regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine in Qu‚bec, Canada, and
the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook,
including sustainability of the dividend, and that the alleged
misstatements caused our common shares to trade at artificially
inflated prices."

"The parties have successfully mediated this dispute and reached a
settlement in principle, subject to definitive documentation,
shareholder notice and court approval. The lawsuit had been
referred to our insurance carriers, who have funded the entire $84
million settlement amount into an escrow account as we await the
court's decision regarding approval.

"The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for June 30, 2016.
The settlement of this lawsuit, if approved, will have no impact
on our financial position or operations."


CLIFFS NATURAL: "Rosenberg" Settlement Has Final Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources 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
entered a final order approving the settlement in the "Rosenberg"
class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In June 2014, an alleged purchaser of the
depositary shares issued by Cliffs in a public offering in
February 2013 filed a putative class action, which is captioned
Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., and after a
round of removal and remand motions, is now pending in the
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, No. CV-14-828140. As
amended, the suit asserts claims against us, certain current and
former officers and directors of the Company, and several
underwriters of the offering, alleging disclosure violations in
the offering documents regarding operations at our Bloom Lake
mine, the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook,
and about the progress of our former exploratory chromite project
in Ontario, Canada."

"The parties successfully mediated this dispute and reached a
settlement agreement in principle, subject to definitive
documentation, notice to class members and court approval. The
settlement provides for a payment to the proposed class of $10
million, which has been deposited into escrow by the insurance
carriers.

"On April 14, 2016, the court determined that the documentation
was complete and the notice provided was appropriate, and the
court entered a final order approving the settlement."


COLORADO: DOC Faces "Atkerson" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Atkerson, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Colorado Dept of Corrections, Rick Raemisch, Roger
Werholtz, Tony Carochi, Aristedes Zavaris, Joe Ortiz, John
Suthers, State of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, CDOC Director of
Clinical Services, CDOCClinical Services Management Team, J.
Russell, Associate Director of The Offices of Legal Services for
CDOC, Dr. Walker, Dr. Cabling, Corrections Corporation of America,
Damon Henninger, Judy Brezindine, CMC-AHCC HAS, and John or Jane
Doe, Case No. 1:16-cv-01102-GPG  (D. Colo., May 12, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for civil rights violations.

Colorado Dept of Corrections is the principal department of the
Colorado state government that operates the state prisons.

Mark Atkerson is a pro se Plaintiff.

COLORADO: DOC Faces "Lujan" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Felix D. Lujan, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, Rick Raemisch, Roger
Werholtz, Tony Carochi, Aristedes Zavaris, Joe Ortiz, John
Suthers, State of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, CDOC Director of
Clinical Services, CDOCClinical Services Management Team, J.
Russell, Associate Director of The Offices of Legal Services for
CDOC, Dr. Walker, Dr. Cabling, Corrections Corporation of America,
Damon Henninger, Judy Brezindine, CMC-AHCC HAS, and John or Jane
Doe, Case No. 1:16-cv-01102-GPG  (D. Colo., May 12, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for civil rights violations.

Colorado Department of Corrections is the principal department of
the Colorado state government that operates the state prisons.

Felix D. Lujan is a pro se plaintiff.


CR ENGLAND: "Fozard" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Chandler Fozard, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. C.R. England, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-01334-B (N.D. Tex., May 13, 2016) seeks overtime wages due
with liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all compensation due
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

C.R. England, Inc. is a trucking company, providing transportation
and logistics services to customers throughout the country where
Fozard was employed as a commercial truck driver. He claims to be
denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benton Williams Ii
      Timothy M. Dortch
      Benton Williams Ii
      COOPER & SCULLY, P.C.
      900 Jackson Street, Suite 100
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 712-9500
      Fax: (214) 712-9540
      Email: micah.dortch@cooperscully.com
             benton.williams@cooperscully.com

          - and -

      Tom Carse, Esq.
      CARSE LAW FIRM
      6220 Campbell Road, Ste. 401
      Dallas, TX 75248
      Telephone: (972) 503-6338
      Facsimile: (972) 503-6348
      Email: tom@carselaw.com


CRST VAN: Can Recoup $4.7MM Legal Fees From EEOC, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court on May 19
ruled unanimously in favor of an Iowa trucking company that was
trying to recover $4.7 million in legal fees from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission after a class action lawsuit
against the company was thrown out.

The justices said lawyers for CRST Van Expedited Inc. may be able
to recoup the money under a law that awards fees to the winning
party.  They returned the case to a lower court for further
review.

The EEOC sought relief for hundreds of female employees who were
allegedly sexually harassed at work.  An appeals court said the
agency erred by suing before properly investigating their claims.

The appeals court said the trucking company couldn't recover legal
fees because the claims were dismissed without a ruling on the
merits.  But the high court reversed.


DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS: "Garcia" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zurina Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Deja Vu Consulting, Inc., DV Saginaw, LLC,
Deja Vu Showgirls, Deja Vu Showgirls of Tampa, LC and Harry
Mohney, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01193-SCB-TBM (M.D. Fla., May
12, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid back wages, minimum wages.
overtime wages, and an additional equal amount of liquidated
damages.  The plaintiff further seeks to obtain declaratory
relief, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and a claim for
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate under the trade name Deja Vu Showgirls where
Garcia worked as an exotic dancer. She claims her only
compensation was tips from patrons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam B. Kenner, Esq.
     KENNER & CUMMINGS PLLC, Suite 2410
     175 SW 7th Avenue
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (305) 384-7205
     Fax: (305) 384-7371
     Email: adam@kennercummings.com


DEL TACO: "Tomasulo" Plaintiff Mulls Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 22, 2016, that the plaintiff in the
"Tomasulo" class action wishes to file an amended complaint.

On April 23, 2015, a purported class action and derivative
complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, Lawrence F.
Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon, Craig J. Duchossois, Ari
B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G. Flynn, Del Taco Holdings,
Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp. ("Complaint"), was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Circuit Court"),
relating to the then proposed Business Combination pursuant to the
Merger Agreement.

The Complaint, which purported to be brought as a class action on
behalf of all of the holders of the Company's common stock,
generally alleged that the Company's pre-merger directors breached
their fiduciary duties to stockholders by facilitating the then
proposed Business Combination and in negotiating and approving the
Merger Agreement. The Complaint also alleged that the Company's
preliminary proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on April
2, 2015 is materially misleading and/or incomplete. The Complaint
further alleged that DTH and Levy Acquisition Sponsor LLC aided
and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's pre-merger
directors. The Complaint sought (a) a declaration that the
Company's pre-merger directors breached their fiduciary duties;
(b) injunctive relief enjoining the Business Combination until
corrective disclosures were made; (c) compensatory and/or
rescissory damages; and (d) an award of costs and attorney's fees.
The Company previously reached a settlement in principle of all
claims asserted in the Complaint, subject to negotiation of a
definitive settlement agreement and approval by the Circuit Court.
To date, the parties have been unable to finalize a definitive
settlement agreement. The Plaintiff has informed the Court that he
wishes to file an amended complaint revising his claims, and the
Court gave Plaintiff until May 5, 2016 to file a motion for leave
to file an amended complaint.


DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in Calif. Managers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 22, 2016, that discovery has been
completed in a class action on behalf of California general
managers.

In July 2013, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime
wages and has not appropriately provided meal breaks to its
California general managers. Discovery has been completed and the
parties are preparing their motions for and opposition to class
certification. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it
believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as
the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter. However, based on management's current understanding of
the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows.


DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in Calif. Hourly Employees' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 22, 2016, that a former Del Taco
employee filed in March 2014 a purported class action complaint
alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately provided meal breaks
and failed to pay wages to its California hourly employees.
Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its
defenses to this threatened class action and the individual
claims. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it
believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as
the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter. However, based on management's current understanding of
the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Ramanathan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Stefan
Krause, Juergen Fitschen, Anshuman Jain, John Cryan, and Marcus
Schenck, Case No. 1:16-cv-03539 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


DOW CHEMICAL: Settles Plutonium Claims for $375 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Elliott, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
thousands of homeowners have reached a $375 million settlement
over their claims that plutonium releases from a nuclear weapons
plant in Colorado damaged their health and devalued their
property, officials said on May 19.

A federal judge must approve the agreement before it officially
ends the 26-year legal battle between the residents and two
corporations that ran the Rocky Flats plant for the federal
government.

Perched on a wind-swept mesa west of Denver, Rocky Flats
manufactured plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads until it
closed in 1989 because of safety and environmental concerns.  It's
the most prominent of Colorado's Cold War relics, which also
included a nerve gas manufacturing site east of Denver.

Few details of the settlement were available.  The lead attorney
for the plaintiffs, Merrill Davidoff, said the agreement has been
submitted to the judge overseeing the case but no documents have
been made public.

Mr. Davidoff said he couldn't comment further and that none of the
individual plaintiffs wanted to speak.

The agreement was first reported by The Denver Post.

The lawsuit, filed in 1990, named Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell
International Corp., which operated the plant for the Energy
Department.  Dow was in charge from the 1950s until 1975, when
Rockwell took over and ran it until it closed.

Dow and Rockwell Automation -- which emerged as a co-defendant
after sales and spinoffs at Rockwell International -- both said
they expect the Energy Department to repay them in full for their
share of the settlement.

The Energy Department said in a statement it is liable for some
claims, but spokesman Bart Jackson could not immediately say
whether it would be the full amount.

The companies said Rockwell's share was $244 million and Dow's was
$131 million.

"Dow believes this settlement is the right decision for the
company and its shareholders," company spokeswoman
Rachelle Schikorra said.

The lawsuit took years to go to trial.  In 2006, a jury found the
companies had damaged nearby land and hurt residents' health.  In
2008, a judge ordered the companies to pay a combined $925
million.

An appeals court overturned the verdict and the award on Sept. 3,
2010, saying the homeowners hadn't proved that plutonium releases
from the plant had hurt their health or their property.  The court
said a decline in property value can't be considered damage.

The case had been appealed to the Supreme Court, but the appeal
has been dropped.

After a $7 billion cleanup that took 10 years, most of the 8-
square-mile property became a wildlife refuge managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.  The most heavily contaminated area
remains off-limits to the public.


DURHAM SCHOOL: Faces "Shann" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donisha Shann and Terrilyn Russel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Durham School Services, LP and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC620301(Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Durham School Services, LP provides contract school bus services
in Texas, California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Treana Allen, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmhoney@mahoney-law.net
              tallen@mahoney-law.net


EXPEDIA, INC: HomeAway.com Faces "Arnold" Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action suit was filed on March 15, 2016, against HomeAway.com,
Inc. related to its recent implementation of a service fee. Arnold
v. HomeAway.com, Inc., Case No. 1-16-cv-00374 (U.S. District
Court, Western District of Texas). The putative class is comprised
of homeowners that list their properties on HomeAway's websites.
The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law.


EXPEDIA, INC: HomeAway.com Faces "Seim" Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action suit was filed on April 15, 2016, against HomeAway.com,
Inc., which also related to the implementation of a service fee.
Seim v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00479 (U.S. District
Court, Western District of Texas). The putative class is comprised
of homeowners that list their properties on HomeAway's websites.
The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Kentucky Consumer
Protection Act, and other state consumer protection statutes.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff have been filed, and were scheduled
to be heard on May 5, 2016, in the case, In re Extreme Networks,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

On October 23 and 29, 2015, complaints were filed for violations
of securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and three of its
current or former officers (Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola,
and John T. Kurtzweil).  Subsequently, the cases were
consolidated.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the
securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme
Networks' current financial condition and growth prospects.
Plaintiffs seek damages of an unspecified amount on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock from
November 4, 2013 through April 9, 2015.  Motions for appointment
of lead plaintiff have been filed, and were scheduled to be heard
on May 5, 2016.  The Company believes the claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend the claims.

Extreme Networks is a provider of network infrastructure equipment
and offer related services contracts for extended warranty and
maintenance to the Company's enterprise, data center and service
provider customers.


EXXONMOBIL: Challenges Virgin Islands AG's Subpoena in Tex. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bastasch, writing for the Libertarian Republic, reports
that Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker told a D.C.-
based libertarian think tank he would be withdrawing a subpoena he
sent the group in April as part of a broader investigation into
ExxonMobil's global warming stance -- and in the same email
threatened more legal actions against the group.

"Attorney General Walker's subpoena of us is an outrageous
violation of our First Amendment rights, and its sole purpose is
to shut down debate," Sam Kazman, senior counsel for the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, said of Mr. Walker's threat of
more legal action.

Linda Singer, an attorney with the class action law firm Cohen
Milstein representing Mr. Walker, emailed CEI on May 13 to tell
the group Mr. Walker would be withdrawing his subpoena for decades
of documents.  Ms. Singer went on, however, to say
Mr. Walker would reissue the subpoena "if OAG intends to move to
compel your client's compliance with the subpoena in its current
form."

CEI has asked D.C.'s Superior Court to fine Mr. Walker for
violating the group's First Amendment rights, and the think tank
is asking for attorneys fees and other sanctions to be placed on
Walker.

"Mr. Walker's statement that he will end his D.C. court action,
but may launch a new one whenever the mood strikes him, is the
height of arrogance and demonstrates that he still doesn't
recognize the harm he has unlawfully inflicted," Mr. Kazman said.

Mr. Walker's abandoning of his current investigation into CEI
comes as the attorneys general of Texas and Alabama intervene in a
lawsuit Exxon filed against a separate subpoena Mr. Walker sent to
the company earlier this year.  Exxon is challenging
Mr. Walker's subpoena in Texas court, and now has the backing of
two prominent state AGs.

Interestingly enough, the AGs' brief focuses on Singer's handling
of Mr. Walker's investigation into Exxon's alleged misleading of
the public on global warming.  The AGs argue hiring a law firm
specializing in class action lawsuits that could make millions of
dollars if Exxon settles with Mr. Walker.

"We agree with ExxonMobil that serious jurisdictional concerns
exist, but to protect the fundamental right of impartiality in
criminal and quasi-criminal investigations, we intervene," the AGs
wrote.  "Thus, the use of contingency fees is highly suspect in
criminal cases and, more generally, when fundamental rights are at
stake."

Ms. Singer, the former attorney general for the District of
Columbia, has made Cohen Milstein millions working with mostly
Democratic attorneys general in class action lawsuits against
various industries.

The New York Times wrote 2014 article how Singer goes about
getting AGs to sue -- or threaten to sue -- all sorts of
industries for huge sums of money.  Her firm pays the upfront
legal costs in exchange for a share of the rewards -- usually
between 15 to 25 percent of a settlement.

Ms. Singer, for example, won a massive settlement with Bank of
america in 2009, netting Nevada an extra $38 million.  As part of
their contingency-fee, her firm got an extra $5.6 million,
according to the Times.

Ms. Singer's history with Mr. Walker suggests her firm could stand
to gain millions if they convince Exxon to settle.

Ms. Singer recently handled a case for the Virgin Islands AG
against Hess Oil over the closure of a refinery in the Virgin
Islands. That settlement and the resulting sale of the refinery
netted the Virgin Islands government $800 million.  Ms. Singer's
handling of the case on what's called a contingency-fee basis
netted her firm $15 million, according to Exxon's legal filing.

Exxon's attorneys believe Ms. Singer is handling the case against
them for Mr. Walker on a contingency-fee basis.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces KBC Asset Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
KBC Asset Management NV and ERSTE-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., individually an on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl K. Sandberg,
Marc L.  Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, Susan D. Desmondhellmann,
Reed Hastings, Jan Koum, Peter Thiel, and Facebook, Inc., Case No.
12325 (Del. Ch. Ct., May 12, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel Friedlander, Esq.
      Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
      Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
      FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, PA
      1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
      Wilmington, DA 19801
      Telephone: (302) 573-3500
      E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com
              jgorris@friedlandergorris.com
              cquinn@friedlandergorris.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      Lawrence P. Eagle, Esq.
      David J. Stone, Esq.
      J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
      Todd H. Henderson, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGLE & SQUIRE, PC
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      E-mail: squire@bespc.com
              eagel@bespc.com
              stone@bespc.com
              walker@bespc.com
              henderson@bespc.com


FAY SERVICING: Faces "Bowles" Class Suit in District New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Fay Servicing,
LLC, American Modern Home Insurance Company, and Southwest
Business Corporation.

The case is captioned Barbra Bowles and Latasha Jackson, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Fay Servicing,
LLC, American Modern Home Insurance Company, and Southwest
Business Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-02714-CCC-JAD (D.N.J., May
13, 2016).

Fay Servicing, LLC is a specialty mortgage debt management company
that provides servicing solutions for performing and non-
performing mortgages.

American Modern Home Insurance Company operates an insurance
company that protects financial institutions and their customers
with products and services supporting mortgage and collateralized
loan portfolios, and customized loan and lease tracking.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC
      363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
      Montclair, NJ 07042
      Telephone: (973) 259-6990
      Facsimile: (866) 848-1368
      E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com


FERROGLOBE PLC: Anticipates Further Discussions with Insurers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ferroglobe PLC said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015, that Globe anticipates further
discussions with insurers toward reaching a final agreement with
the Insurers on reimbursement for a portion of the settlement fund
and a final allocation of the attorneys' fee and expense award in
the litigation related to the business combination.

On March 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of Globe's shareholders ("Globe Shareholders") in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Fraser
v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10823-VCG, named
as defendants Globe, the members of its board of directors, Grupo
VM, FerroAtlantica, Gordon Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Ferroglobe
("Merger Sub") and the Company. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the Globe directors breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to obtain the best price possible for Globe
Shareholders, that the proposed merger consideration to be
received by Globe Shareholders is inadequate and significantly
undervalued Globe, that the Globe directors failed to adequately
protect against conflicts of interest in approving the
transaction, and that the Business Combination Agreement unfairly
deters competitive offers. The complaint also alleged that Globe,
Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company aided and
abetted these alleged breaches. The action sought to enjoin or
rescind the Business Combination, damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On April 1, 2015, a purported Globe Shareholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Globe Shareholders challenging
the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The action, captioned City of Providence v. Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG, named as
defendants Globe, the members of its board of directors, its Chief
Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the
Company. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Globe's
board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted
by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company, breached
their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business Combination
for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the
Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential
alternative transaction. The complaint further alleged, among
other things, that Globe's Executive Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub
and the Company, breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating
the Business Combination Agreement, and, in the case of the
Executive Chairman, by entering into a voting agreement in favor
of the Business Combination Agreement, out of self-interest. The
action sought to enjoin the Business Combination, to order the
board of directors to obtain an alternate transaction, damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 10, 2015, a purported Globe Shareholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Globe Shareholders challenging
the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The action, captioned Int'l Union of Operating Engineers
Local 478 Pension Fund v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10899-VCG, named as defendants Globe, the members of its
board of directors, its Chief Executive Officer, Grupo VM,
FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company. The complaint made
identical allegations and sought the same relief sought in City of
Providence v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10865-VCG.

On April 21, 2015, a purported Globe Shareholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Globe Shareholders challenging
the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The action, captioned Cirillo v. Globe Specialty Metals,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10929-VCG, named as defendants Globe, its
board of directors, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the
Company. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Globe's
directors, aided and abetted by Globe, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica,
Merger Sub and the Company, breached their fiduciary duties in
agreeing to the Business Combination for inadequate consideration
and that certain provisions in the Business Combination Agreement
unfairly deterred a potential alternative transaction. The action
sought to enjoin or rescind the Business Combination, disclosure
of information, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 4, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated these four actions under the caption In re Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No. 10865-VCG (the "Action"). The Court further designated the
complaint filed in C.A. No. 10865-VCG as the operative complaint
in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Globe from convening a
special meeting of Globe Shareholders to vote on the proposal to
adopt the Business Combination Agreement or consummating the
Business Combination. In addition, Plaintiffs filed a motion for
expedited proceedings, and supporting brief, in which they
requested that the Court schedule a trial in this action before
the Globe Shareholders vote on the Business Combination.
Defendants, including Globe, filed an opposition brief in which
they objected to Plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings to
the extent it seeks expansive discovery and an expedited trial on
the merits in lieu of a preliminary injunction hearing.
Subsequently, the parties reached agreement on the scope of
expedited discovery.

On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint, realleging, among other things, that Globe's
board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted
by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company, breached
their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business Combination
for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the
Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential
alternative transaction. The amended complaint further alleged
that, among other things, Globe's preliminary proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 6, 2015, was
materially misleading and incomplete, and that Globe's board of
directors and Chief Executive Officer breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to
Globe Shareholders in connection with the Business Combination.
The amended complaint sought, among other relief, an order
enjoining the Defendants from consummating the proposed Business
Combination; a declaration that the disclosures contained in the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus are deficient; damages; and
attorneys' fees and costs. On August 26, 2015, the Court held a
hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

On September 10, 2015, the parties to the Action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which outlined the terms
of an agreement in principle to settle the Action. Based on the
terms of the MOU, the parties to the Action entered into a formal
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") on October 30, 2015.
The Stipulation provided that the settlement would be subject to
certain conditions, including final court approval of the
settlement, final certification of a settlement class, and closing
of the Business Combination. Upon satisfaction of these
conditions, a $32.5 million aggregate cash payment would be paid
after the closing of the Business Combination by the combined
companies on a pro rata basis to the holders of shares of Globe
common stock (other than the defendants in the Action and certain
related persons) as of the close of business on the business day
immediately prior to completion of the Business Combination. The
Stipulation also provided that the Defendants would implement
governance amendments for the benefit of Globe's shareholders
following completion of the Business Combination. Defendants
further agreed to pay or cause to be paid such attorneys' fees and
expenses as may be awarded by the Court to Plaintiffs' Counsel for
their efforts in prosecuting the Action, as well as the costs of
administering the settlement. The Stipulation included a release
of all claims against the Defendants and their advisors relating
to or arising from the Action.

On December 23, 2015, the parties to the Business Combination
Agreement completed the Business Combination. On February 10,
2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held a
hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to approve the proposed settlement,
including final certification of the settlement class, and
Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. The Court approved the settlement, including final
certification of the settlement class, and awarded Plaintiffs'
Counsel $9,989,376.73 in attorneys' fees and expenses. Following
court approval of the settlement, Globe paid $32.5 million into a
settlement fund to be held for the benefit of the settlement
class. With respect to the attorneys' fee and expense award,
Globe's Insurers paid eighty-five percent of the award and Globe
paid the remaining fifteen percent of the award. Globe anticipates
further discussions with the Insurers toward reaching a final
agreement with the Insurers on reimbursement for a portion of the
settlement fund and a final allocation of the attorneys' fee and
expense award.


FIRST NIAGARA: Has Deal to Settle KeyCorp Merger Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
Delaware federal court action has reached an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit.

On October 30, 2015, the Company and KeyCorp ("KeyCorp") entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). The
Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth therein, the Company will merge with and into
KeyCorp (the "Merger"), with KeyCorp as the surviving corporation
in the Merger. The Merger Agreement was approved by the Board of
Directors and shareholders of each of the Company and KeyCorp.

Since the announcement of the Merger, eight shareholders of the
Company have filed separate putative class action complaints
challenging the Merger. Six complaints were filed in New York
State Supreme Court, Erie County (the "Court"); these complaints
were subsequently consolidated into a single action entitled In re
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Case
No. 812908/2015 (the "New York Action"). One complaint was filed
in the Court of Chancery, Delaware, and one was filed in United
States District Court, District of Delaware. The complaints were
brought against the Company, each of its directors individually,
and KeyCorp. All of the lawsuits seek, among other things, to
enjoin or rescind the Merger, and to obtain an award of costs and
attorneys' fees and damages for the alleged fiduciary breaches.
On March 8, 2016, First Niagara, each of its directors and KeyCorp
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs
regarding the settlement of the New York Action. The memorandum of
understanding reflects the plaintiffs' and the defendants'
agreement in principle to settle the New York Action and release
the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to
the approval of the Court. Under the terms of the agreement in
principle, plaintiffs' counsel also has reserved the right to seek
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. If the Court approves
the settlement contemplated by the agreement in principle, the New
York action will be dismissed with prejudice.

Also on or about March 8, 2016, defendants and the plaintiff in
the matter pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery agreed to
stay the proceedings in light of the settlement of the New York
Action. On or about March 14, 2016, the plaintiff and defendants
in the Delaware federal court action reached an agreement to
settle that action, and on March 31, 2016, the Court entered an
order of dismissal.

None of the settlements will affect the merger consideration to be
paid to First Niagara's stockholders in connection with the
Merger.

First Niagara, KeyCorp and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations made by plaintiffs in each of the actions and believe
the disclosures in the Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under
the law. Nevertheless, First Niagara, KeyCorp and the other
defendants have agreed to settle the New York Action and the
action brought in the District of Delaware in order to avoid the
costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation.

First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") is a Delaware
corporation and a bank holding company, subject to supervision and
regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(the "Federal Reserve"), serving both retail and commercial
customers through our bank subsidiary, First Niagara Bank, N.A.
(the "Bank"), a national bank subject to supervision and
regulation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the
"OCC").


FIRSTMERIT CORP: 5 Lawsuits Filed by Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that five putative derivative and class
action lawsuits have been filed by separate shareholders of
FirstMerit Corporation ("FirstMerit") relating to the proposed
merger between Huntington Bancshares, Inc. ("Huntington") and
FirstMerit.  Two of those lawsuits were filed in the Summit County
Common Pleas Court, Ohio:  W. Patrick Murray v. Huntington
Bancshares Incorporated, Case No. CV-2016-02-0917, was filed on
February 11, 2016; and The Robinson Family Trust v. Paul Greig,
Case No. CV-2016-02-0981, was filed on February 17, 2016 (the
"State Court Lawsuits").  On April 14, 2016, the State Court
Lawsuits were consolidated.  The State Court Lawsuits consolidated
complaint alleges that the individual directors of FirstMerit
breached their fiduciary duties by approving a proposed merger
that allegedly undervalues FirstMerit, allegedly provides the
directors with benefits not afforded FirstMerit shareholders, and
allegedly includes deal protection devices to ensure that the
proposed merger will be consummated.  The consolidated complaint
also alleges that the directors approved a Registration Statement
on S-4, filed on March 4, 2016, (the "Registration Statement")
that omits material information about the proposed merger.  It
also alleges that Huntington aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  It seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief to prevent the consummation of the proposed merger, an
award of fees and costs, and other equitable relief.

The other three lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio:  Wojno v. FirstMerit
Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-461, was filed on February 26, 2016;
Wilkinson v. FirstMerit Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-723, was filed on
March 23, 2016; and Hafner v. Greig, Case No 5:16-cv-762, was
filed on March 28, 2016 (the "Federal Court Lawsuits").  On April
8, 2016, the parties to the Federal Court Lawsuits filed a
stipulation that, among other things, would consolidate the
actions and designate a consolidated complaint.  The stipulation
remains pending.  Each complaint in the Federal Court Lawsuits
makes similar allegations to the State Court Lawsuits consolidated
complaint, and also alleges that the directors violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by approving the Registration Statement.
The Hafner complaint also alleges that Huntington violated Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with the
Registration Statement.  Each complaint in the Federal Court
Lawsuits seeks similar relief to the State Court Lawsuits
consolidated complaint.

On April 13, 2016, the defendants in the State Court Lawsuits
filed a motion to stay the State Court Lawsuits pending the
resolution of the parallel Federal Court Lawsuits.  The motion to
stay remains pending.


FITBIT INC: Investors Group Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of
California granted Fitbit Investor Group's motion for appointment
as lead plaintiff in the case BRIAN H. ROBB, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00151-SI (N.D. Cal.)

Fitbit, Inc. (Fitbit) manufactures fitness-tracking devices. Among
these devices are the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge, both of
which include heart rate trackers that purport to monitor users'
heart rates. On June 18, 2015, Fitbit completed its initial public
offering but on January 5, 2016, a consumer class action suit was
filed in the district against Fitbit, alleging that Fitbit's heart
rate monitoring system on the Charge HR and Surge were dangerously
inaccurate and posed serious health risks to users.

On January 11, 2016, plaintiff Brian Robb brought a class action
suit for violation of the federal securities laws against Fitbit,
James Park, and William Zarella. He brought claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), 15
U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

On March 11, 2016, George Diaz, Fitbit Investor Group, comprised
of individuals Timothy Flynn, Jesse M. Koth and Kelley Koth, Viet
Tran, and Mark Cunningham, Bright Agyapong, Teamsters Local 282
Trust Funds, and Institutional Investor Group, comprised of City
of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System, Local No. 8 IBEW
Retirement Plan & Trust, and Chester County Employees Retirement
Fund, filed their respective motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff. Fitbit Investor Group also seeks the appointment of co-
lead counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP.

Judge Illston granted Fitbit Investor Group's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and grants its motion for
appointment of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP as
co-lead counsel.

A copy of Judge Illston's order dated May 10, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/EaA3Fffrom Leagle.com.

Brian H. Robb, Plaintiff, represented by J Alexander Hood --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com --
Jeremy A Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Marc Gorrie --
mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP

Fitbit Inc., James Park and William R. Zerella, Defendants,
represented by Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- Anna Erickson White
-- awhite@mofo.com -- Ryan M. Keats -- rkeats@mofo.com -- at
Morrison & Foerster LLP

George Diaz, Movant, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- at Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP

Fitbit Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jeremy A Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com
-- at Pomerantz LLP; Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Bright Agyapong, Movant, represented by Willem F. Jonckheer --
wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- at Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe
LLP

Teamsters Local 282 Trust Funds, Movant, represented by Ira M.
Press -- ipress@kmllp.com -- Robert J. Gralewski, Jr. --
bgralewski@kmllp.com -- Thomas Elrod -- telrod@kmllp.com -- at
Kirby McInerney LLP

Institutional Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jennifer
Lauren Joost -- jjoost@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer and
Check LLP; Thomas L Laughlin, IV -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com --
at Scott Scott LLP


FLY LEASING: Faces Gerald Margolis Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Fly Leasing Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015, that Gerald Margolis filed on March
25, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting
that Fly Leasing Limited, Colm Barrington (our Chief Executive
Officer), and Gary Dales (our Chief Financial Officer) violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, particularly concerning our
accounting with respect to intangible assets and liabilities for
aircraft acquired with in-place leases. The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the putative
class and an award of attorney's fees, expert fees and other
costs.

The Company said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and
intend to defend it; however, failure by us to obtain a favorable
resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and
financial condition. Currently, the amount of such material
adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, and no provision or
liability has been recorded for these claims. The costs associated
with defending and resolving the lawsuit and ultimate outcome
cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent
uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from
the conduct of our business, will depend upon many unknown factors
and management's view of these factors may change in the future."

Fly Leasing Limited is a Bermuda exempted company that was
incorporated on May 3, 2007, under the provisions of Section 14 of
the Companies Act 1981 of Bermuda.  Fly Leasing is principally
engaged in purchasing commercial aircraft which it leases under
multi-year contracts to a diverse group of airlines throughout the
world.


FORD MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Broken Spark Plugs
--------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Ford
and Lincoln owners who experienced spark plugs breaking when
trying to change the plugs have claim benefit deadlines
approaching after Ford agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit.

Without admitting guilt, Ford agreed to settle the lawsuit after
owners said it cost a fortune to replace the spark plugs. Some
owners paid more than $1,000 to have repair facilities use special
tools to remove the broken spark plugs.

The class-action lawsuit alleges spark plugs get stuck inside the
cylinder heads in Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with 5.4-
liter 3-valve engines.  Owners report that trying to remove the
spark plugs often causes the plugs to break off, making it
impossible to remove the plugs without the needed tools.

The consolidated class-action lawsuit settlement includes the
following Ford and Lincoln vehicles sold or leased in the U.S.,
all equipped with 5.4-liter 3-valve engines:

   -- 2004-2008 Ford F-150
   -- 2005-2008 Ford F-250 and F-350
   -- 2005-2008 Ford Expedition
   -- 2005-2008 Lincoln Navigator
   -- 2006-2008 Lincoln Mark LT

The consolidated lawsuit, Ford Motor Co. Spark Plug and 3-Valve
Engine Products Liability Litigation, was granted final settlement
approval in January 2016, but affected owners of the Ford and
Lincoln vehicles must file claims and submit the proper
documentation to receive benefits.

Ford Spark Plugs Claim Benefit Deadlines

   -- If your Ford or Lincoln spark plugs were replaced before
October 23, 2015, the deadline for submitting a claim is
August 25, 2016.

  -- If your spark plugs were replaced on or after October 23,
2015, the deadline for submitting claims is February 27, 2017.

Ford Spark Plugs Lawsuit Eligibility Guidelines

Every eligible owner who spent more than $300 in parts and labor
to replace eight spark plugs in a vehicle with less than 120,000
miles will be eligible for reimbursement on a percentage of the
amount paid over $300.  The amount of reimbursement will depend
upon the cost incurred by the owner and by the documentation the
owner can provide.

The documents an owner kept will be important to receive
reimbursement.  Those documents can consist of copies of receipts
or other documentation that shows the following:

   -- The services performed.
   -- The identity of the repair facility that replaced the spark
plugs.
   -- The date of service.
   -- The amount paid.
   -- The vehicle identification number (VIN).
   -- The mileage on the vehicle.

Owners whose first spark plug replacement occurred after 120,000
miles but prior to December 22, 2015, are also eligible for
reimbursement if they provide the information listed above and do
the following:

Identify the Ford dealership that instructed them to wait to have
the spark plugs in the vehicle replaced and the approximate date
on which this information was told to the owner.

Provide dealership service records establishing the vehicle was
taken to a Ford dealership between 90,000 and 120,000 miles.
If an owner can't submit the proper documents to prove the work
performed on the spark plugs, it's possible to still file a claim
to receive reimbursement up to $50.  The choice whether to pay
undocumented claims will be left to the claims administrator.

It should be noted that Ford and Lincoln owners with vehicles that
have more than 120,000 miles and who have not yet had the spark
plugs replaced are not eligible for reimbursement.

Owners who file a claim and accept Ford's offer will be releasing
Ford and its suppliers from all claims contained in the lawsuit.
This simply means accepting the settlement benefits prevents an
owner from suing Ford over the spark plug problems.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Powershift Transmission
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josie Taylor, writing for ABC News, reports that a law firm has
launched a class action on behalf of about 60,000 Australian Ford
owners, claiming vehicles containing an automatic "PowerShift"
transmission are potentially dangerous.

The lawsuit alleges the six-speed, double-clutch transmission used
in some Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport models is not safe, fails to
comply with Australian consumer law, and has had a clear pattern
of problems.

The claim alleges some drivers have experienced sudden
acceleration, delay in downshifts, delayed acceleration, and
difficulty in stopping whilst braking.

Manual vehicles are not part of the lawsuit.

One Ford Fiesta owner Kelly Richards, who is part of the class
action, believes the transmission on her car caused an engine fire
that destroyed the vehicle.

"It wasn't driving properly and shuddering when accelerating.  An
independent mechanic identified the transmission as the problem,"
Ms Richards said.

"Then my father-in-law was taking a short trip when the engine
began to smoke.  Quite quickly, the entire front of the car was
engulfed in flames.  It was a frightening experience and the car
was a write-off."

The law firm said it had nearly 2,000 car owners already
registered in the class action.

"We're asking the court to consider ordering a full refund for the
purchase price, a range of damages ensuing from repair costs and
out-of-pocket expenses, and aggravated damages," principal of
Bannister Law, Charles Bannister said.

Ford Australia said it had not received any legal documents and
would not comment on pending litigation in any case.


FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: "Cappello" Sues Over Underfunded Pension Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Cappello and Jeffrey O'Barski, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Franciscan
Alliance, Inc., Franciscan Alliance Pension and Benefits
Committee, and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00290
(N.D. Ind., May 12, 2016) seeks:

  -- preliminary and permanent injunction removing Defendants as
     fiduciaries
  -- penalties
  -- declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary and
     appropriate, including enjoinment
  -- equitable relief including surcharge, disgorgement of
     profits, equitable lien, constructive trust, and
  -- attorney fees and expenses

pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Cappello worked at the Franciscan St. James Health - Olympia
Fields hospital as a switchboard operator until 2008. She is
currently a participant in the Franciscan Alliance Pension
Security Plan.

O'Barski was employed by Franciscan St. Anthony Health - Crown
Point hospital until January 2009 where she worked as a cook. She
is currently a participant in the Franciscan Alliance Pension
Security Plan.

Defendants allege that the Franciscan Alliance Pension Security
Plan was underfunded.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin E. Warren, Esq.
      SOPKO, NUSSBAUM, INABNIT & KACZMAREK
      210 South Michigan Street
      South Bend, IN 46601
      Telephone: (574) 234-3000
      Facsimile: (574) 234-4220
      Email: Kevinw@sni-law.com

             - and -

      Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
      Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
      Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706
      Fax: (610) 667-7056
      Email: eciolko@ktmc.com
             mgyandoh@ktmc.com
             jsjohnson@ktmc.com

             - and -

      Robert A. Izard, Esq.
      Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Tel: (860) 493-6292
      Fax: (860) 493-6290
      Email: rizard@izardnobel.com
             mkindall@izardnobel.com


GANNETT CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Clark" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ramona Clark and Dylan Schlossberg, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Gannett Co., Inc., Case No.
2016CH06603 (Ill. Ch., Ct., May 12, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct.

Gannett Co., Inc. operates a media and marketing company with a
portfolio of broadcast, digital, mobile and publishing companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
              erapp@edelson.com

         - and -

      Stefan L. Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      1072 Madison A venue, Suite 1
      Lakewood, NJ 08701
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has
scheduled a hearing on July 20, 2016 to consider final approval of
the settlement in a securities class action lawsuit.

In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief
executive officer and its then current chief financial officer
were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel
Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff
alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in
2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance
reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the
same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks
the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra
lawsuit.

Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the
City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the City of Pontiac
lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta
and Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association as lead
plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re
Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation.  On December 22,
2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

"On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint," the Company said.  "On May 1, 2015, the court
denied the motion to dismiss. We engaged in mediation in the
fourth quarter of 2015, continuing into the first quarter of 2016,
and previously accrued $25 million in connection with this matter,
which was the amount of our self-insured retention on our
executive and organizational liability insurance program."

"On March 11, 2016, in connection with the mediation, we reached
an agreement in principle to settle the action. On April 1, 2016,
the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of
settlement. The settlement provides for a full release of all
defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit.
We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, but we
are settling the lawsuit to avoid the burden, risk and expense of
further litigation. The agreement provides for a settlement
payment to the class of $219 million, inclusive of all plaintiffs'
attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs, of which $150
million will be paid by our insurance carriers, and $69 million
pre-tax will be paid by Genworth.

"Our payment was made into an escrow account during the first
quarter of 2016. We also incurred additional legal fees and
expenses of approximately $10 million pre-tax, for a total
additional pre-tax incurred amount of $79 million in the first
quarter of 2016.

"On April 13, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, provisional certification
of the class for settlement purposes only, and issuance of notice
to settlement class members. The settlement remains subject to
final court approval. The Court has scheduled a hearing on July
20, 2016 to consider final approval of the settlement.

"In the event the settlement is approved by the court, it will
exhaust all coverage available to Genworth under our 2014
executive and organizational liability insurance program.
Therefore, Genworth does not have coverage under the program to
pay any future settlements or judgments in relation to litigation
brought during the 2014 policy year, including the City of Hialeah
Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Hialeah Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case by City of
Hialeah Employees' Retirement System.

In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief
executive officer and its then current chief financial officer
were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of
Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc.,
et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations
involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth's
Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an
initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such
equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. The
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
appointed City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New
Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and
designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial,
Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 3, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

"On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint," the Company said. "On March 25, 2015, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied the motion but entered an order dismissing the amended
complaint with leave to replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied
the motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, we filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's June 16, 2015 order denying our
motion to dismiss which the court denied on March 3, 2016."

"On January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification which we opposed. On March 7, 2016, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. We intend to
vigorously defend this action.

"We have exhausted all coverage under our 2014 executive and
organizational liability insurance program applicable to this
case; therefore, there is no insurance coverage for Genworth with
respect to any settlement or judgment amount related to this
litigation."


GODADDY INC: Johnson & Vines Files False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 18, 2016, consumer fraud class action attorneys,
including Christopher D. Jennings of the Johnson & Vines Law Firm,
filed a lawsuit against GoDaddy, Inc., for violation of various
consumer protection and false advertising laws based on its
alleged misrepresentation of its "Dedicated Server" hosting
platform for customers.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of "all individuals or entities
who purchased or subscribed to 'Dedicated Server' services
provided by GoDaddy from October 2014 to the present and received
a 'virtualized' server."  The plaintiffs seek both compensatory
and punitive damages on behalf of the class, as well as injunctive
relief to prevent future misrepresentation on behalf of GoDaddy.

According to the lawsuit, GoDaddy sells differing types of server
access, including "virtual private servers" and "dedicated
servers."  The dedicated server is represented to be assigned to
just one customer and not shared or used by others and cost
substantially more than GoDaddy's virtual private servers.  The
lawsuit claims that GoDaddy's dedicated server, however, actually
allows several separate servers to run on and share the resources
of one physical server, meaning that customers who purchase a
dedicated server subscription are actually paying a premium for
what is, in essence, just a virtual private server.

"Under the law, when companies are alleged to engage in practices
that harm consumers, a class action lawsuit is a means by which
those consumers can seek compensated for their damages" said
attorney Chris Jennings.  "The complaint filed against GoDaddy
seeks both a refund for customers who spent money on these
services, as well as an order prohibiting the company from
engaging in similar conduct in the future."

GoDaddy responded to the complaint by filing an answer on May 13,
2016.

Other attorneys representing the plaintiffs include Kathryn
Honecker of Rose Law Group in Scottsdale, Arizona, Stephen R.
Basser and Samuel M. Ward of Barrack Rodos & Bacine in San Diego,
John G. Emerson and David G. Scott of Emerson Scott in Houston and
Little Rock, Arkansas.  The case is pending in the US District
Court for the District of Arizona, case no. 2:16-CV-00746-DGC.


GRO-WELL BRANDS: Judge Narrows Claims in "McMillan" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Gro-Well Brands'
motion to dismiss in the case GLENN McMILLAN, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, and GRO-WELL BRANDS, INC., Defendants, No. 1:15-cv-
00695 DAD SMS (E.D. Cal.)

Glenn McMillan purchased bags of Premium Mulch from Lowe's Home
Centers, LLC (Lowe's), a retail store in Bakersfield, California.
Premium Mulch is a private-label product retailed exclusively at
Lowe's stores. Gro-Well Brands, Inc. (Gro-Well) manufactures,
packages, distributes, and sells Premium Mulch to Lowe's under a
contractual agreement.  Lowe's directs, controls, and participates
in the manufacturing and packaging of the Premium Mulch.  Lowe's
developed the textual and graphic content on a standard, uniform
bag, and Gro-Well prints the content and representations on the
bags. At the direction and under the control of Lowe's, Gro-Well
implements and utilizes a standard mechanized process for
distributing a uniform amount of mulch in each bag.  Lowe's and
Gro-Well both knew the actual uniform amount of mulch distributed
in each bag.

McMillan filed a putative class action against defendants Lowe's
and Gro-Well alleging that they misrepresented the quantity of
mulch contained in the private-label Premium Mulch bags. The
complaint asserts six causes of action: (1) violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code
Sections 1750 et seq.; (2) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et
seq.; (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL),
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500 et seq.; (4) violation of
the consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices acts of each of
the fifty states and the District of Columbia; (5) fraudulent
misrepresentation; and (6) unjust enrichment.

Defendant Lowe's filed a motion to dismiss on June 22, 2015 and
defendant Gro-Well filed a motion to dismiss on July 27, 2015. On
January 20, 2016, the court denied Lowe's' motion to dismiss.

Gro-Well contends that the complaint fails to state a plausible
claim, because it does not expressly reference the California Fair
Packaging and Labeling Act or allege plaintiff measured the mulch
using standards and procedures consistent with the CFPLA. In
addition, Gro-Well argues the complaint fails to plead facts
supporting the elements of justifiable reliance and intent to
deceive, fails to state a cognizable claim for unjust enrichment
and fails to establish standing for the requested injunctive
relief. Alternatively, Gro-Well asks the court to equitably
abstain from adjudicating plaintiff's claims, because, it argues,
the provisions of the CFPLA are better enforced by state
administrative agencies than by the court.

District Judge Mueller granted in part and denied in part Gro-
Well's motion to dismiss. The court granted Gro-Well's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief with leave to
amend and denied Gro-Well's motion in all other respects. An
amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days of the date the
order is filed.

A copy of Judge Mueller's order dated May 4, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/2cBvcEfrom Leagle.com.

Glenn McMillan, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. De Re --
matt@attorneyzim.com -- Thomas A. Zimmerman -- tom@attorneyzim.com
-- at Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C.; Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Meghan George --
mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- at Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Neil K. Gilman
-- ngilman@hunton.com -- Phillip J. Eskenazi --
peskenazi@hunton.com -- at Hunton & Williams LLP
Gro-Well Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric M. Roberts -
- eric.roberts@dlapiper.com -- Todd Michael Noonan --
todd.noonan@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP


GTX CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Over Construction Contract Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Electrical Services LLC d/b/a Sunrise Mechanical Services,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GTX
Construction Associates, Corp. and Giovanni Napolitano a/k/a John
Napolitano, Case No. 600387/2016 (N.Y., Super. Ct., May 12, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide full
payment for a construction project to repair and upgrade the HV AC
system at the Theodore Roosevelt Old Orchard Museum, located in
Oyster Bay, New York.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq.
      FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
      333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 1010
      Uniondale, NY 11553
      Telephone: (516) 248-1700
      E-mail: info@forchellilaw.com


HARRIS AND ZIDE: "Harper" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the Northern District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement in the case JOYCE HARPER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE LAW OFFICE OF HARRIS AND ZIDE LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 15-cv-01114-HSG (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs filed suit against The Law Office of Harris and Zide
LLP for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (FDCPA), and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1788, et seq.
(RFDCPA), for failing as a matter of pattern and practice to
provide certain required disclosures during debt collection.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant, acting to collect debts from the
putative class on behalf of Bank of America (BOA), failed to
provide the exact disclosure required by 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(4), which requires that debt collectors send certain
validation notices to debtors when attempting to collect a debt
that advise debtors about their rights to dispute the debt and to
request, in writing, that the debt collector provide verification
of the debt.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant failed to inform them that
verification of their purported debt could be requested in writing
only, thereby insinuating that an oral request for verification of
the debt is valid. Plaintiffs sought statutory damages, injunctive
and declaratory relief, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees.

Defendant answered the complaint on June 17, 2015. Plaintiffs
stipulated to dismiss BOA from the action and filed a notice of
class action settlement on September 17, 2015.  The parties have
reached a settlement regarding plaintiffs' claims and seek
required court approval. Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement on November 2,
2015.

Judge Gilliam granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement and the parties are directed to
implement the proposed class notice plan.

Salient terms of the settlement:

     (A) Monetary Relief: Each class member will receive $10
regardless of the ultimate size of the class.  Given the currently
estimated class size, the class will receive an aggregate payment
of $11,570.  Plaintiffs will receive an additional $1000 each as
statutory damages awarded under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(2)(A).  To
the extent that any funds remain after all claims are paid, Bay
Area Legal Aid will receive the balance as a cy pres recipient.

     (B) Injunctive Relief: Defendant will no longer use the
language quoted in the class definition in its initial debt
collection communications.

     (C) Release: The class will release Defendant and any
associated persons or entities from any and all known and unknown
claims that arise out of or relate to the use of the language
quoted in the class definition from Defendant's initial debt
collection communications.

     (D) Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Plaintiffs will file an
application after final settlement approval for attorneys' fees
and costs not to exceed $45,000.  Defendant will not oppose an
application for fees and costs totaling no more than $25,000.
Settlement is not contingent on the outcome of this fee
application, which remains subject to the discretion of the Court.

A copy of Judge Gilliam's order dated May 4, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/n29gn1from Leagle.com.

Joyce Harper, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron David Radbil --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- at Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC;
Corinne Deveza Orquiola -- corquiola@consumerlawcenter.com -- at
Krohn and Moss; Ryan Scott Lee - ryan@ryanleepllc.com -- at Law
Offices of Ryan Lee, PLLC

The Law Office of Harris and Zide LLP, Defendant, represented by
John Willard Sheller -- jsheller@hinshawlaw.com -- Renee Choy
Ohlendorf -- rchoy@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, 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 discovery is ongoing in the case, In re Harman International
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against
Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court") seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September
24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.

"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the District Court seeking compensatory
damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our
common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The
allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical
to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the
original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The
amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the
first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

"On February 15, 2008, the District Court ordered the
consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the
administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated
the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action
no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the District Court
appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff
("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

"On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly
failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios,
personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial
condition became known to the market, the price of our common
stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff
class.

"On July 3, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and the defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

"On September 5, 2012, the District Court heard oral arguments on
the defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the District
Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental
briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17,
2014, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss, without
prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

"The Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Court of
Appeals") and, on June 23, 2015, the District Court's ruling was
reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 23, 2015,
the defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en banc before the
Court of Appeals, which was denied on August 26, 2015. The
defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking U.S.
Supreme Court review on November 24, 2015, which was denied by the
District Court on February 29, 2016.  Discovery in this matter is
ongoing."

The Company is engaged in the design and engineering of connected
products and solutions for automakers, consumers and enterprises
worldwide, including audio, visual and infotainment systems,
enterprise automation solutions and software services.  Its brand
names are AKG(R), AMX(R), Crown(R), Harman/Kardon(R), Infinity(R),
JBL(R), JBL Professional, Lexicon(R), Mark Levinson(R), Martin(R),
Revel(R), Soundcraft(R) and Studer(R) brand names.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth 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 court has scheduled
a hearing for May 19, 2016 to consider the Company's motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit by stockholders.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our
former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8,
2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9,
2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on
December 22, 2010."

"During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us.
Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth
and add several former officers to the lawsuit.

"On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their
complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those
named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to
federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We
filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on
January 10, 2013.

"On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back
to state court. On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another
amended complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time
period of 1997 to 2002.

"On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds
the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative
in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of
limitations. The court has scheduled a hearing for May 19, 2016 to
consider our motion to dismiss.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on
the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and
circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying
claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and
scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an
adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it
is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or
range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment
or settlement of this case."


HF FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------
HF Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, that the
Company has entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
regarding the settlement of litigation arising out of its merger
agreement with Great Western Bancorp, Inc.

On November 30, 2015, HF Financial Corp., a Delaware corporation
("HF") and Great Western Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Great Western") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "merger agreement").  Under the merger agreement, HF will
merge with and into Great Western with Great Western surviving the
merger (the "merger").  On April 7, 2016, HF filed a definitive
proxy statement (the "definitive proxy statement") in connection
with the merger, which HF mailed to its stockholders on or about
April 7, 2016.

On December 14, 2015, Shiva Y. Stein, a purported HF stockholder,
filed a putative class action and derivative complaint against HF,
each of the members of the HF board and Great Western in the
Circuit Court of Minnehaha County, South Dakota (the "Court")
purportedly on behalf of the public stockholders of HF. The
complaint was subsequently amended on March 7, 2016. The complaint
asserts that the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by purportedly failing to take adequate steps to enhance HF
stockholder value as a merger candidate, by not acting
independently to protect the interests of HF stockholders and by
failing to make adequate disclosure in the Registration Statement
on Form S-4 as filed on March 3, 2016. The complaint further
asserts that HF and Great Western aided and abetted the purported
breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks (i) a declaration
that the action may be maintained as a class action; (ii)
injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger; (iii)
in the event the merger is consummated, rescission of the
transaction or rescissionary damages; (iv) an order directing the
Defendants to account to the plaintiff for damages because of
alleged wrongdoing; (v) an award to plaintiff of costs and
disbursements including attorneys' and experts' fees; and (vi)
other relief as may be just and proper.

On April 5, 2016, the plaintiff submitted its Memorandum of Law in
Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The
Court has set a hearing date for April 27, 2016.  The Defendants
believe these claims are without merit.

On April 22, 2016, the defendants to the aforementioned litigation
entered into the MOU with counsel for the plaintiff, pursuant to
which HF has agreed to make disclosures concerning the merger set
forth below.  In accordance with the terms of the MOU, the
plaintiff has agreed to stay the proceeding and to withdraw its
request for a preliminary injunction.   In addition, the MOU
contemplates that, subject to the completion of confirmatory
discovery by plaintiff's counsel, the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement
contemplated by the parties will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to HF's
stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the
Court, it will resolve and release all claims that were or could
have been brought in any actions challenging any aspect of the
merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to HF's
stockholders prior to the Court's final approval of the
settlement. The MOU will not affect the amount of the
consideration to be received by any HF stockholder in the merger.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement, or that the Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The MOU may be rendered null and void, if, among
other reasons, (i) the Court fails to enter a final order and
judgment approving the settlement, or (ii) the merger agreement is
terminated by the parties thereto or the merger is not consummated
for any reason.

The defendants each have denied, and continue to deny, all of the
allegations of wrongful or actionable conduct asserted in the
complaint, and the HF board vigorously maintains that it
diligently and scrupulously complied with its fiduciary duties,
that the definitive proxy statement is complete and accurate in
all material respects and that no further disclosure is required
under applicable law. The defendants are entering into the MOU and
the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the cost, burden,
distraction and expense of having to defend this litigation
further. Nothing in the MOU, any settlement agreement or any
public filing is or shall be deemed to be an admission of the
legal necessity of filing or the materiality under any applicable
law of any of the additional information contained herein or in
any public filing associated with the proposed settlement of the
complaint.


ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Facing Class Action by Former Employee
----------------------------------------------------------
A former employee is seeking class action status and payment of
back wages, ICTS International N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

ICTS International N.V. was registered at the Department of
Justice in Amstelveen, Netherlands on October 9, 1992. ICTS and
subsidiaries (collectively referred to as "ICTS" or  "Company")
operate in three reportable segments: (a)corporate (b) aviation
security and other aviation services and (c) technology. The
corporate segment does not generate revenue and contains primarily
non-operational expenses. The airport security and other aviation
services business provide security and other services to airlines
and airport authorities, predominantly in Europe and the United
States. The technology segment is predominantly involved in the
development and sale of identity security software to financial
and other institutions, in Europe and the United States.


INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Action Against BOH Holdings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank is defending against a legal proceeding it
inherited in connection with its acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc.
and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was completed on
April 15, 2014, Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford
Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL,
had deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased
certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit
against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs were victims of
fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeking to recover
damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this
case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended
Class Action Complaint asserts previously unasserted claims,
including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent
scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford
Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH
officers.

Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its insurance
carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially indicated that a
"loss" has not yet occurred or that the claims are not covered by
the policies. However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue
insurance coverage for these claims, as well as for the
reimbursement of defense costs, through the initiation of
litigation and other means.

Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are
without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. This is
complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters and
issues. As such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when this
matter may be resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation,
the ultimate outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising
from, this case.

The Company operates 42 full service banking locations, with 24
located in the Dallas/North Texas region, 7 located in the
Austin/Central Texas region and 11 in the Houston region.


INGRAM MICRO: Faces "Scheiner" Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Ingram Micro Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that a putative stockholder
class action suit captioned Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc. et al.,
30-2016-00839447-CU-SL-CXC CXC, was filed on March 8, 2016, in the
Superior Court in Orange County, California. The complaint names
as defendants Ingram Micro, its directors, Tianjin Tianhai and
Merger Subsidiary. The complaint asserts that Ingram Micro's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value in negotiating and approving the merger
agreement, by agreeing to supposedly unfair deal protection
devices and by allegedly acting in a self-interested manner. The
complaint also generally alleges that Tianjin Tianhai, Ingram
Micro and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted such purported
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification and injunctive relief blocking
consummation of the merger. Ingram Micro and the other defendants
have not yet responded to the complaints. Ingram Micro believes
this action is without merit.

Ingram Micro Inc. and its subsidiaries are primarily engaged in
the distribution of information technology ("IT") products,
commerce and fulfillment services and mobile device lifecycle
services worldwide. Ingram Micro Inc. and its subsidiaries operate
in North America; Europe; Asia-Pacific (which includes Middle East
and Africa); and Latin America.


INSPERITY, INC: Worksite Employee Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend against the Worksite Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan Class
Action Litigation.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and
our third party discretionary trustee of the Insperity 401(k)
retirement plan available to eligible worksite employees (the
"Plan") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on behalf of Plan
participants. This suit generally alleges that the Company's
third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting
an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan,
by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping
fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other
fiduciaries and by making imprudent investment choices.

"We believe we have meritorious defenses and we intend to
vigorously defend this litigation," the Company said.

Insperity, Inc., provides an array of human resources ("HR") and
business solutions designed to help improve business performance.


INSULET CORP: Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., remains outstanding.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court,
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current
and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were
voluntarily dismissed. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v.
Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, which remains outstanding, alleges
that the Company (and certain executives) committed violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price
between May 7, 2013 and April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs. Due in part to the preliminary nature of this matter,
the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss,
or range of loss, in connection with this matter.


INTEL CORP: Motion for Reconsideration Scheduled in May 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration is scheduled for hearing in May 2016.

The Company said, "At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
California, Southern District of California, District of Idaho,
District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine,
and District of Delaware, as well as in various California,
Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat
the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against us by
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in June 2005 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation). Like the AMD
litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that we engaged in
various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by,
among other things: providing discounts and rebates to our
manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or
near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with
AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors; interfering with
certain AMD product launches; and interfering with AMD's
participation in certain industry standards-setting groups. The
class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that
consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher
prices for computers containing our microprocessors."

"All of the federal and state class actions other than the
California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all
pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The
Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address
issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In July
2010, the Special Master denied the MDL plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of members who purchased certain personal
computers containing products sold by us.

"In July 2014, the district court affirmed the Special Master's
ruling and issued an order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition
for interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third
Circuit denied in October 2014.

"In December 2014, we filed a motion for summary judgment on the
claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs. We subsequently
negotiated a settlement of the claims and the case was dismissed
in September 2015.

"All California class actions were consolidated in the Superior
Court of California in Santa Clara County. In March 2008, the
plaintiffs in the California actions moved for class
certification, which we opposed.

"In February 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' request for leave
to retain a new expert and to amend their previous motion for
class certification. In March 2016, the court denied plaintiffs'
amended class certification motion, and plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration, which is scheduled for hearing in May 2016.
Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, we are
unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from these matters."


INTEL CORP: McAfee Shareholder Litigation Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation continues to defend the McAfee, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, according to Intel's Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016.

The Company said, "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had
agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee)
for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative
class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior
Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel
as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached
their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted
those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the
merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may
deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In
June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value
of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be
$62.08."

"In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class
action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the
class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January
2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the
class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012.
In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench
trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that
order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August
2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial
court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final
judgment in the case in February 2013.

"In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel,
McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to
plaintiff's appeal in December 2014. Because the resolution of the
appeal may materially impact the scope and nature of the
proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this
matter. We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue
to defend the lawsuit vigorously."


IXIA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 29
-------------------------------------------------------
IXIA said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, that as Ixia (the
"Company") has previously disclosed, the Company entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015,
relating to the proposed settlement of the securities class
action, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement
System, et al. v. Ixia, et al., that is currently pending against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (the "Court").

On February 29, 2016, the Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and scheduling a
hearing for the Court to consider final approval of the proposed
settlement on July 29, 2016. That order directed that the Company
file the Publication Notice of Proposed Settlement of Securities
Class Action and Settlement Hearing describing the settlement (the
"Notice") as an attachment to a current report on Form 8-K within
60 days after entry of the order. Accordingly, pursuant to that
order, the Company is filing the Notice as Exhibit 99.1 to this
Current Report on Form 8-K (this "Form 8-K").


KENNEDY KRIEGER: "Myers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Myers, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated
v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01422-GLR (D.
Md., May 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. is in the business of providing
various forms of healthcare.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq.
      Joseph E. Spicer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
              jspicer@nicholllaw.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: EoTech Class Actions in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 25, 2016, that the EoTech Class
Actions are in the early stages.

In December 2015 and February 2016, three putative class action
complaints against the Company were filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the United
States District Court of the District of Oregon.

The complaints allege that the Company's EoTech business unit
knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights, and seek
monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and
expenses based on claims including breach of warranty, fraud,
violation of state consumer protection statutes and unjust
enrichment. These cases have been consolidated into a single,
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

In March 2016, two additional putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, which assert similar claims against the
Company.

The Company believes it has valid defenses with respect to these
actions and intends to defend against them vigorously. The Company
is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss that
may be incurred in connection with these matters because the
proceedings are in their early stages.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Underway in Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 25, 2016, that discovery has
commenced in the securities class action.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended
and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting
errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment,
and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
fees and expenses.

On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all
claims against the Company's officers and allowed the claim
against the Company to proceed to discovery. Discovery has
commenced.

The Company believes the claim lacks merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate
any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in
connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their
early stages.


LACOSTE USA: Sued Over the Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Lacoste USA, Inc. d/b/a Lacoste,
Case No. 1:16-cv-21694-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 12, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Lacoste USA, Inc. operates a clothing company in the United
States.

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


LAMBCORP: Texas Homeowners File Class Action Over Fraudulent Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims Journal reports that thousands of Texas homeowners
victimized by severe weather may also be victims of a wide-ranging
conspiracy involving door-to-door solicitors, public insurance
adjusters and attorneys, according to a class-action lawsuit filed
in Dallas.

The lawsuit claims that individuals, companies and law firms
purportedly representing residents with property damage insurance
claims are actually operating a pyramid scheme to collect unlawful
and fraudulent fees that can make completing the repairs almost
impossible.

According to court documents, the scheme typically begins when a
door-to-door solicitor working on behalf of a roofing contractor
claims that his company can get the homeowner's insurance company
to pay for property damage, such as a new roof.  After the initial
insurance payment arrives, the solicitor keeps the funds and
brings in a so-called "public adjuster" to inspect the home and
seek additional payment from the insurance company, charging a fee
of 10 percent of the total claim plus other expenses.

The solicitor also tells the homeowner that a lawyer must be hired
to get still more payments from the insurance company, adding a 25
percent to 40 percent fee for any recovery.  Having never met or
even spoken with the homeowner, the attorney then files a lawsuit
against the insurer without the homeowner's knowledge, agrees to a
mediation, and settles the matter without the approval of or
consultation with the homeowner.  When a settlement check finally
arrives, the payment often is not enough to pay for roof repairs
because of deductions to cover the fees and expenses of the
attorney, public adjuster and solicitor.

"This is a very real and deceitful scheme that is carried out in
this state every day by those who are supposed to be helping
homeowners, not ripping them off," said attorney Mark Ticer, who
represents Dallas resident Juan Guerra in the lawsuit.

Mr. Guerra was approached in 2014 by a representative of
Arlington-based roofing contractor Lambcorp, who said the company
could handle his insurance claim for a new roof.  Guerra turned
over the payment from his insurer to Lambcorp, which demanded that
he hire Arlington-based National Claims Negotiators LLC, a public
adjusting firm, and the San Antonio law firm of Speights & Worrich
to obtain additional payments from his insurer insurer.

Mr. Guerra still has not received the new roof he was initially
promised by the solicitor, nor have the insurance proceeds taken
by Lambcorp been returned to him.

"This lawsuit is bringing to light an elaborate web of
conspirators and con artists who are lining their pockets at the
expense of innocent and unsuspecting homeowners, with a goal of
bringing accountability, honesty and integrity back into the
system," said attorney Van Shaw of the Law Offices of Van Shaw in
Dallas, co-counsel for Mr. Guerra and the proposed class.

Dallas attorney Steven Badger -- sbadger@zelle.com -- of Zelle LLP
has been vocal on behalf of the insurance industry in responding
to the dramatic increase in hail damage lawsuits.  In addition to
his work defending insurance companies, Mr. Badger represents a
group of homeowners in a class action lawsuit against North Texas
roofing contractor Lambcorp alleging the unauthorized practice of
public adjusting and other improper conduct.  The Guerra class
action was filed as an intervention into Mr. Badger's lawsuit, as
it also named Lambcorp as a defendant.

Messrs. Ticer and Shaw say the lawsuit also exposes a troubling
increase in Texas of an illegal practice called barratry, which
includes the improper solicitation of potential cases by
individuals not associated with the lawyer handling the matter.

"Such conduct is unfortunately becoming increasingly common, but
Texas law provides victims of barratry a private right of action
against the violating lawyers," said Mr. Ticer.

"The allegations of solicitation and barratry set forth in
Guerra's lawsuit are typical of what those of us involved in
defending these lawsuits believe is going on all across Texas,"
Mr. Badger said.

Mr. Badger expects to see additional barratry lawsuits filed in
the months ahead.  "Each and every week I am contacted with
concerns about Texas attorneys and their door-to-door canvassers
following the same model described in the Guerra lawsuit."

Mr. Badger said he is encouraged to see well-known plaintiffs'
attorneys like Mark Ticer and Van Shaw taking steps to address
apparent illegal conduct by other attorneys.  "Mark and Van should
be commended for their willingness to take on this important
issue."

The case is Guerra v. Jorge Garcia, Vivian Armas, et al., No. DC-
15-03338, in the 134th District Court in Dallas.


LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the settlement
agreement between the Company and the class of end-payor
purchasers remains subject to the final approval of the District
Court.

Beginning on October 5, 2011, several plaintiffs filed putative
class action complaints in several United States federal district
courts against the Company and several other global suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and
indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the
Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period.
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices
at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an
anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United
States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently
concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these
proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified
amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the
proceedings, including attorneys' fees. On February 7, 2012, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order
transferring and coordinating the various civil actions (the
"Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (the "District Court").

In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to
litigate the Consolidated Cases, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Cases on May 5, 2014 (the "Settlement Agreements"), under which
the class plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases will release the
Company from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of
action. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the
Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it
violated no laws in connection with these matters. Because the
conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to
periods prior to the Company's emergence from bankruptcy
proceedings in 2009, the Settlement Agreements provide that the
aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will consist of
$370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder
paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held
in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of
reorganization.

The Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27,
2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by
the District Court on July 1, 2014. The Settlement Agreement
between the Company and the class of direct purchasers received
the final approval of the District Court on December 3, 2014. The
Settlement Agreement between the Company and the class of auto
dealers received the final approval of the District Court on
December 7, 2015. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and
the class of end-payor purchasers remains subject to the final
approval of the District Court, which will be decided following
the provision of notice to purported class members and a hearing
to confirm the fairness of the settlement.

Lear is a leading Tier 1 supplier to the global automotive
industry. It supplies seating, electrical distribution systems and
electronic modules, as well as related sub-systems, components and
software, to virtually every major automotive manufacturer in the
world.


LEGEND UPPER: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinto Reyes Silva, Panfilo Espinobarros, Salvador Reyes Silva,
Sergio Candia, Sixto Galando, and Victoriano Rogelio, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Legend Upper
West, LLC d/b/a Legend Upper West, Min Xing Wang, and Dinggen
Wang, Case No. 1:16-cv-03552 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant located at 258
West 109th Street, New York, New York 10025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that peer-to-peer
financial platform LendingClub Corp. has been hit with a pair of
securities fraud class actions as its stock spirals on reports
that it masked the true nature of its business model.

Block & Leviton attorneys Lesley Weaver, Jeffrey Block and Jacob
Walker filed suit on May 18 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, aiming to recover more than $1.3
billion in market value that was lost in the wake of the
disclosures.

That followed a similar suit filed on May 16 by Jennifer Pafiti
and a team of lawyers at Pomerantz.  That complaint, also filed in
the Northern District, did not put a dollar figure on investor
losses, but noted that the company's stock as of early last week
was down roughly 75 percent from the price at its initial public
offering in 2014.

A spokesman for LendingClub declined to comment.  No lawyers have
yet entered an appearance for the company.  Representatives of
Fenwick & West, which handled the company's IPO, could not
immediately be reached for comment.

The two suits rest on slightly different theories.  The Block &
Leviton case argues that LendingClub misled investors because it
did not disclose that the company and its executives were invested
in a separate company called Cirrix Capital, that itself invested
in LendingClub loans on the company's platform.

Rather than being a "neutral middleman" without exposure to the
underlying risk of its loans, the company had "instead turned
itself into just another bank," the suit says.  It alleges that
this structure left Lending Club exposed to credit risk, and hid
the fact that the company itself was driving lending activity.
The company's links to Cirrix were reported by news outlets after
it fired CEO Renaud Laplanche, and later disclosed by the company
in public filings.

The Pomerantz case focuses more on the chief reason for
Mr. Laplache's termination -- the fact that the company sold an
investor $22 million in loans that were made to consumers with low
credit scores, in violation of the investor's instructions.

After this came to light, the complaint says, "LendingClub's stock
suffered a precipitous decline in market value, thereby causing
significant losses and damages to plaintiff and other class
members."


LG DISPLAY: Reached Settlement Except as to Motorola and Costco
---------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of April 28, 2016,
LG Display has reached settlement with each of the plaintiffs,
except as to Motorola and Costco Wholesale Corp.

After the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice
investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed
against LG Display, LG Display America and other TFT-LCD panel
manufacturers in the United States and Canada alleging violation
of respective antitrust laws and related laws. In a series of
decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class action lawsuits in the
United States were transferred to the Northern District of
California for pretrial proceedings, which we refer to as the MDL
Proceedings.

In March 2010, the federal district court granted the class
certification motion filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
and granted in part and denied in part the class certification
motion filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

In January 2011, 78 entities (including groups of affiliated
entities) submitted requests for exclusion from the direct
purchaser class. In April 2012, ten entities (including groups of
affiliated companies) submitted requests for exclusion from the
indirect purchaser class. In addition, since 2010, the attorneys
general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin filed complaints against
LG Display, alleging similar antitrust violations as alleged in
the MDL Proceedings.

In June 2011, LG Display reached a settlement with the direct
purchaser class, which the federal district court approved in
December 2011. In July 2012, LG Display reached a settlement with
the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs and with the state
attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan,
Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin, which was
approved by the federal district court in April 2013 and, in the
case of the state attorneys general actions, by their respective
state governments. LG Display has since reached settlement with
each of the attorneys general that had filed action.

In addition, in relation to the MDL Proceedings, in 2009, ATS
Claim, LLC (assignee of Ricoh Electronics, Inc.), AT&T Corp. and
its affiliates, Motorola Mobility, Inc. ("Motorola"), and
Electrograph Technologies Corp. and its subsidiary filed separate
claims in the United States, and all of the actions were
subsequently consolidated into the MDL Proceedings. In 2010,
TracFone Wireless Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc. and its affiliates,
Target Corp., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corp., Old Comp Inc.,
Good Guys, Inc., RadioShack Corp., Newegg Inc., Costco Wholesale
Corp., Sony Electronics, Inc. and its affiliate, SB Liquidation
Trust and the trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidation
Trust filed separate claims in the United States. In 2011, the
AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust on behalf of All American
Semiconductor Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond Corporation
of America, Jaco Electronics, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., P.C.
Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, MARTA Cooperative of
America, Inc., ABC Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency Services, LLC
on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and its affiliate, T-Mobile U.S.A.,
Inc., Tech Data Corporation and its affiliate filed similar claims
in the United States. In 2012, ViewSonic Corp., NECO Alliance LLC,
Rockwell Automation LLC, Proview Technology Inc. and its
affiliates filed similar claims. In November 2013, Acer America
Corporation and its affiliates filed similar claims in the United
States. The cases were transferred to the MDL Proceedings for
pretrial proceedings. In December 2012, Sony Europe Limited and
its affiliate filed similar claims in the High Court of Justice in
the United Kingdom. As of April 28, 2016, LG Display has reached
settlement with each of the plaintiffs, except as to Motorola and
Costco Wholesale Corp.

In July 2013, the Motorola case was remanded to the District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (the "NDIL Court"). In
September 2013, LG Display and defendants in the Motorola case
submitted a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment
ruling on the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act ("FTAIA")
to the NDIL Court. In January 2014, the NDIL Court granted
defendants' motion for reconsideration based on the FTAIA and
Motorola appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
7th Circuit (the "7th Circuit Appeals Court"). In November 2014,
oral hearing took place before the 7th Circuit Appeals Court for
the Motorola case, and the 7th Circuit Appeals Court affirmed the
NDIL Court's decision. In March 2015, Motorola filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United
States. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States
denied Motorola's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. In July 2015,
the NDIL Court dismissed LG Display from the Motorola case.

In July 2013, the Costco case was remanded to the District Court
for the Western District of Washington (the "WDWA Court"). In
September 2014, jury trial for the Costco case commenced in the
WDWA Court. In October 2014, the jury rendered a verdict of
approximately US$36.7 million for Costco Wholesale Corp. against
LG Display and AU Optronics. In June 2015, the court entered
judgment in favor of Costco Wholesale Corp. for US$61.9 million
(including treble damages and offset), and LG Display filed
combined motions for (i) judgment as a matter of law; (ii) in the
alternative, a new trial; and (iii) amendment of findings in bench
trial. In March 2016, the WDWA Court denied LG Display's combined
motions and we filed notice of appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.


LG DISPLAY: TFT-LCD Class Suits in Canada Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
currently defending class action complaints in Canada.

In 2007, class action complaints were filed against LG Display and
other TFT-LCD manufacturers in Canadian provinces of British
Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The Ontario Superior Court of
Justice certified the class in May 2011.

"In April 2014, we appealed the class certification decision to
the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which upheld the lower court's
decision in an order dated December 2015. LG Display is currently
defending against their claims. The actions in Quebec and British
Columbia have been held in abeyance," the Company said.


LG DISPLAY: Decision in Israel Class Action Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action
complaint was filed in December 2013 in the Central District in
Israel. In June 2015, the Company filed a motion to cancel leave
to serve process, which was denied in March 2016. In April 2016,
the Company appealed this decision.


LIBERTY OILFIELD: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Harris, individually and for others similarly situated, v.
Liberty Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01116 (D. Colo.,
May 14, 2016), seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Dakota Law.

Liberty provides a variety of oilfield support services to
oilfields in Colorado, North Dakota and Wyoming. Harris was a
field engineer at their Colorado site. He claims to have been
denied overtime wages for hours in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 877-8788
     Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

          - and -

     Michael A. Josephson
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet St.
     Houston, TX 77005
     Tel: (713) 751-0025
     Fax: (713) 751-0030
     Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: District Court Order Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs have
appealed the District Court's Order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of
the Company's subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and
certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named
defendants in 26 individual lawsuits filed since December 2014,
and 2 putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit
Court of Dallas County, Alabama.  These lawsuits allege that
patients at Vaughan Regional Medical Center underwent improper
interventional cardiology procedures.

One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21,
2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama
citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any
Company-owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding
the medical necessity of that procedure.

The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015
also in the Circuit Court for Dallas County, Alabama, seeks
certification of a class of individuals that underwent an
interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically
necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut.  This action asserts, among
other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful, would result in
the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the
RICO violation and attorneys' fees.

In March 2015, the Company removed this action to the U.S.
District Court in Mobile, Alabama and filed a motion to dismiss
and for summary judgment, as well as a stay of discovery pending
resolution of these motions. On April 17, 2015 the court entered
an order granting the requested stay of discovery.

On November 17, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge for the
Southern District of Alabama filed a Report and Recommendation
that the RICO claim be dismissed with prejudice, and that the
court not exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, resulting in those claims being dismissed without
prejudice.

By Order dated March 28, 2016, the United States District Court
Judge adopted in full the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate, dismissing with prejudice the RICO claim and refusing
to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.   In
a filing made April 7, 2016 the plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.


M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Confidential Resolution in "Alvarez"
--------------------------------------------------------
M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit by Philip Alvarez has reached a
final and confidential resolution of the matter.

The Company said, "On March 10, 2015, Philip Alvarez, a former
employee of Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. ("Mindspeed") filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Mindspeed in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Orange. On April 24, 2015,
Alvarez filed a First Amended Complaint adding our subsidiary M/A-
COM Technology Solutions Inc. as a defendant. The lawsuit alleged,
among other things, that Alvarez and certain other employees who
designed and manufactured hardware systems for Mindspeed or M/A-
COM Technology Solutions Inc. between March 10, 2011 and the
present were misclassified as exempt employees under California
law. The lawsuit seeks recovery of alleged unpaid overtime wages,
meal and rest period premiums, penalties and attorneys' fees.

"We dispute the allegations of the lawsuit," the Company said.

On June 15, 2015, Mindspeed removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. On
July 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, which Motion
was denied in an Order dated September 9, 2015. The parties have
reached an agreement for the dismissal of all class action
allegations and claims in the action, as well as certain other
claims against Mindspeed and M/A-COM Technology Solutions Inc. and
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint effectuating this
agreement. Accordingly, the only claims remaining in the action
were those of Alvarez on an individual basis. Subsequently, the
parties reached a final and confidential resolution of the matter.

M/A-COM Technology is a provider of high-performance analog
semiconductor solutions that enable next-generation Internet
applications, the cloud connected apps economy, and the modern,
networked battlefield across the radio frequency (RF), microwave,
millimeterwave and photonic spectrum.


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs Seek $2 Million Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the litigation
relating to the MarkWest Merger, the plaintiffs filed an
application for reimbursement of approximately $2 million of legal
fees and expenses.

In July 2015, a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
challenging the MarkWest Merger was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported unitholder of MarkWest. In
August 2015, two similar putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by plaintiffs
who purport to be unitholders of MarkWest. On September 9, 2015,
these lawsuits were consolidated into one action pending in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, now captioned In re
MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation. On October
1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the
individual members of the board of directors of MarkWest Energy
GP, L.L.C. (the "MarkWest GP Board"), MPLX, MPLX GP, MPC and
Sapphire Holdco LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MPLX, asserting
in connection with the MarkWest Merger and related disclosures
that, among other things, (i) the MarkWest GP Board breached its
duties in approving the MarkWest Merger with MPLX and (ii) MPC,
MPLX, MPLX GP, and Sapphire Holdco LLC aided and abetted such
breaches.

On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation and proposed
order to dismiss all claims with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs, but the Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate an
application for a mootness fee by the plaintiffs' counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On March 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an application for
reimbursement of approximately $2 million of legal fees and
expenses.

"We intend to vigorously defend against any application for a
mootness fee and do not expect the resolution of such matter to
have a material adverse effect," the Company said.

Marathon is an independent petroleum refining and marketing,
retail and midstream services company.


MAXWELL & MORGAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Malcolm" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edris Malcolm and Rosario Torres, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Maxwell & Morgan PC, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01473-GMS (D. Ariz., May 13, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Maxwell & Morgan PC operates a law firm located at 4854 E Baseline
Rd # 104, Mesa, AZ 85206.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 565-1327
      E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


MCS CLAIM: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Essence Smith, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. MCS Claim Services, Inc. and Daniel P.
Colucci, Case No. 1:16-cv-02439 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

MCS Claim Services, Inc. operates an insurance agency located at
23 Frost St #150, Westbury, NY 11590.

Essence Smith is a pro se plaintiff.


MEDICENTRES: July 7 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you were a patient at a Medicentre clinic either Edmonton or
Calgary between May 2, 2011 and September 19, 2013, you may be
affected by a settlement.  A settlement has been reached in the
Class Action with respect to the loss of a laptop computer
containing names, dates of birth, Alberta Health Care Number and
Alberta Health-Diagnostic Codes ("Personal Information").
Compensation may be available for the following claims:

(a) Actual out of pocket costs incurred for credit monitoring or
identify theft protection purchased on or before December 18, 2015
directly and solely as a result of the loss of the Personal
Information;

(b) Registration Costs for an Equifax Credit Monitoring and
Identity Theft Insurance Program;

(c) Compensation for medically recognized psychological or
psychiatric conditions caused or aggravated directly and solely as
a result of the loss of the Personal Information, with supporting
documentation from a physician or other healthcare professional as
may be acceptable to the Claims Administrator; and

(d) Out of Pocket costs incurred as a result of actual identity
theft which occurred on or before December 18, 2015 related
directly and solely to the loss of the Personal Information.

The proposed settlement must be approved by the court.  An
application to approve the settlement will be heard in Edmonton,
Alberta on July 7, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.  Class members who wish to
make submissions regarding the settlement must act by June 30,
2016.

Proposed Distribution of the Settlement Funds

At the settlement approval application, the court will be asked to
approve a protocol for distribution of the settlement funds.
After the approval application, a further notice will be
distributed regarding the process and deadline for filing a claim.
To ensure that you receive this notice, please register online at
www.jameshbrown.com or www.darcydeacon.com

Class Counsel& Legal Fees

The law firms of D'Arcy Deacon and James H. Brown and Associates
are Class Counsel.  Class Counsel and legal fees and disbursements
must be approved by the court.   Class Counsel will request
approval of legal fees of up to CDN$200,000.00, plus disbursements
of CDN$38,694.93 and applicable taxes, to be paid out of the
settlement funds.

QUESTIONS?

Visit www.jameshbrown.com or call 1-800-616-0088 or visit
www.darcydeacon.com or call 1-855-656-1495, or email
rmallett@jameshbrown.com or cdocken@darcydeacon.com


MERCEDEZ BENZ: "Ferrari" Amended Complaint Due May 31
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of
California granted defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to
amend in the case STEVE FERRARI, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-
BENZ USA, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04379-YGR (N.D.
Cal.)

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against defendants
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Autobahn, Inc., David Ahlheim, and Sonic
Automotive Inc., alleging claims for violation of 18 U.S.C.
sections 1961 et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), California Business & Professions Code
section 17500, the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); intentional
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, violation of California Business & Professions
Code section 17200, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and
negligence.

Defendants Autobahn, Inc., David Ahlheim, and Sonic Automotive
Inc. filed their motion to dismiss the first amended complaint
Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC separately filed its motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint.

Judge Gonzalez granted the motion with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
shall file their second amended complaint later than May 31, 2016
and defendants shall respond within 21 days thereafter.

A copy of Judge Rogers's order dated May 10, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/BpKK0Ofrom Leagle.com.

Steve Ferrari, Plaintiffs, represented by Herman Franck --
franckherman@hotmail.com -- Elizabeth Betowski --
elizabeth.francklaw@gmail.com -- at Franck and Associates

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert B. Hawk
-- robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP

AUTOBAHN, INC., David Ahlheim and SONIC AUTOMOTIVE INC.,
Defendants, represented by Bruce Grant Nye -- bnye@adamsnye.com
-- Georges A. Haddad -- ghaddad@adamsnye.com -- at Adams Nye Becht
LLP


MILLER ENERGY: "Hull" Suit Alleges Accounting and Reporting Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel R. Hull, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Deloy Miller, Scott M. Boruff,
David J. Voyticky, Catherine A. Rector, David M. Hall, Merrill A.
McPeak, Gerald Hannahs, Charles M. Stivers, Don A. Turkleson, Bob
G. Gower, Joseph T. Leary, William B. Richardson, Marceau N.
Schlumberger, Paul W. Boyd, Williams Financial Group, Maxim Group
LLC, Northland Capital Markets, Aegis Capital Corp., National
Securities Corporation, Dominick & Dominick, LLC, Ladenburg
Thalmann & Co. Inc., I-Bankers Securities, Inc. and MLV & Co. LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00232 (E.D. Tenn., May 12, 2016),
seeks compensatory damages, counsel fees and expert fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Act of 1933.

Defendants are accused of financial accounting and reporting
fraud, as well as audit failures, related to the valuation of
certain oil and gas assets acquired by Miller Energy, an oil and
gas company headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee. Miller Energy
purchased assets located in Alaska, along with the assumption of
certain liabilities during a competitive bid in a bankruptcy
proceeding in December 2009. Miller Energy subsequently reported
those assets at an overstated value.

Miller Energy Resources, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation With its
principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee. It is engaged
in the exploration, development, production, and drilling of oil
and gas resources in Alaska.

Deloy Miller, Scott M. Boruff, David J. Voyticky, Catherine A.
Rector, David M. Hall, Merrill A. McPeak, Gerald Hannahs, Charles
M. Stivers, Don A. Turkleson, Bob G. Gower, Joseph T. Leary,
William B. Richardson, Marceau N. Schlumberger and Paul W. Boyd
served as board of directors of Miller Energy.

Williams Financial Group, Maxim Group LLC, Northland Capital
Markets, Aegis Capital Corp., National Securities Corporation,
Dominick & Dominick, LLC, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., I-Bankers
Securities, Inc. and MLV & Co. LLC are underwriters of the Miller
transaction.

The Defendants are represented by:

     James Al Holifield, Jr., Esq.
     HOLIFIELD & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C
     11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201
     Knoxville, TN 37934
     Tel: (865) 566-0115
     Fax: (865) 566-0119
     Email: Aholifield@hapc-law.com

             - and -

     Werner R. Kranenburg
     KRANENBURG
     80-83 Long Lane
     London ECIA 9ET


MOBILEIRON, INC: Class Suit Dismissed; No Sum Paid
--------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that MobileIron paid no
money to the plaintiffs or their attorneys in connection with the
dismissal of a class action.

On May 1, 2015, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers, captioned Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The
action was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 13, 2015 and April 22, 2015. It
asserted claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.The complaint sought, among other
things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on
behalf of the putative class.  An amended complaint was filed on
September 28, 2015. On February 22, 2016, the District Court
issued an order granting MobileIron's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and on March 15, 2016 the Court dismissed the
case. MobileIron paid no money to the plaintiffs or their
attorneys in connection with the dismissal of the action.

MobileIron invented a purpose-built mobile IT platform for
enterprises to secure and manage mobile applications, or apps,
content and devices while providing their employees with device
choice, privacy and a native user experience.


MOBILEIRON, INC: Corrected Consolidated Complaint Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit have filed a corrected consolidated complaint,
which no longer names the underwriters or investors as defendants.

On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of
its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned
Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc.,
et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were
subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron
Shareholder Litigation. The actions are purportedly brought on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities issued pursuant or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and the June 12, 2014 initial public
offering. The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint
seeks among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees
and costs on behalf of the putative class.

On April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated
complaint, which no longer names the underwriters or investors as
defendants. The Company intends to defend this litigation
vigorously.

MobileIron invented a purpose-built mobile IT platform for
enterprises to secure and manage mobile applications, or apps,
content and devices while providing their employees with device
choice, privacy and a native user experience.


MOL GLOBAL: Preliminary Settlement Approval Sought
--------------------------------------------------
Mol Global, Inc. said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement has been filed with the Court.

Between November 24, 2014 and December 2, 2014, three putative
class actions were commenced against, among others, the Company
and certain of its officers and directors, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned
Freedman v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9357 (WHP), Grodko v.
MOL Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9397 (WHP) and Jewell v. MOL
Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9493 (WHP). Each asserts claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of
investors who acquired the Company's American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") between October 9, 2014 and November 20, 2014, and/or who
acquired ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
October 9, 2014 Initial Public Offering. The Freedman and Grodko
actions also assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 22, 2014, plaintiffs voluntary dismissed the Grodko
action. Motions for lead plaintiff were due on or about January
23, 2015.

On May 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. A consolidated complaint was
filed on July 7, 2015 and a second consolidated amended complaint
was filed on October 7, 2015. The Company's motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint was fully briefed as of
December 21, 2015.

The parties entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement
dated April 11, 2016 to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The
settlement is subject to court approval. A motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement was filed with the Court on
April 12, 2016.


MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Counsel Does Not Violate Protective Order
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, said the court cannot conclude
on record and argument that the plaintiffs' counsel violated the
protective orders in the case SEAN L. GILBERT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MONEYMUTUAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-01171-JSW
(LB) (N.D. Cal.).

The MoneyMutual, LLC defendants produced information as "Highly
Confidential" in the related state case Pham v. JP Morgan Chase
Bank, NA and as "Protected Material" in the current lawsuit.
Generally, both protective orders provide that the plaintiffs can
use such confidential information only for prosecuting the
litigation.

The plaintiffs and the MoneyMutual defendants agreed that the
contact information could be used in the current case subject to
the terms of the Pham protective order but later they entered into
a protective order that a receiving party may use protected
material that is disclosed or produced by another party or by a
non-party in connection with the case only for prosecuting,
defending, or attempting to settle the litigation.

Defendant David Johnson contends that the plaintiffs' counsel is
misusing the contact information to file arbitrations against Mr.
Johnson and other defendants who successfully moved to compel
arbitration.

Plaintiffs' counsel made a representation before the court that he
is not violating the protective orders because he is not using
confidential information to solicit clients within the meaning of
California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-400.

A discovery dispute was made whether the practice of plaintiffs'
counsel violates the protective order's requirement that the
plaintiffs' counsel can use confidential information only in the
present litigation.

Magistrate Judge Beeler orders the plaintiffs' counsel to do what
he has agreed to do and that is not to solicit clients through use
of the contact information disclosed by the MoneyMutual defendants
or Mr. Johnson.

A copy of Judge Beeler's order dated May 10, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/ICbTC8from Leagle.com.

Sean L. Gilbert, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Andrew C. Simpson, Esq.
     Law Offices of Andrew C. Simpson P.C.
     14 AB Church Street
     Christiansted, VI 00820
     Telephone: 340-719-3900
     Facsimile: 340-719-3903

          - and -

     Jeffrey Neil Wilens, Esq.
     Lakeshore Law Center
     18340 Yorba Linda Blvd, Suite 107-610
     Yorba Linda, CA 92886-4058
     Telephone: 714-854-7205
     Facsimile: 714-854-7206

          - and -

     Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
     The Spencer Law Firm
     2727 Camino Del Rio #140
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: 619-233-1313

Keeya Malone, Kimberly Bilbrew and Charmaine B. Aquino Plaintiffs,
represented by:

     Andrew C. Simpson, Esq.
     Law Offices of Andrew C. Simpson P.C.
     14 AB Church Street
     Christiansted, VI 00820
     Telephone: 340-719-3900
     Facsimile: 340-719-3903

          - and -

     Jeffrey Neil Wilens, Esq.
     Lakeshore Law Center
     18340 Yorba Linda Blvd, Suite 107-610
     Yorba Linda, CA 92886-4058
     Telephone: 714-854-7205
     Facsimile: 714-854-7206

MoneyMutual, LLC, Selling Source, LLC, Montel Brian Anthony
Williams, Glenn McKay, Partner Weekly, LLC, Brian Rauch, John
Hashman, Samuel W. Humpreys, Douglas Tulley, Alton F. Irby, III,
Defendants, represented by Donald J. Putterman --
dputterman@plglawyers.com -- Michelle Lee Landry --
Mlandry@plylaw.com -- Tobias George Snyder -- tsnyder@plylaw.com
-- at Putterman Landry Yu LLP

David A. Johnson, Defendant, represented by Ashley Brooke Vinson
Crawford -- avinson@akingump.com -- Reginald David Steer --
rsteer@akingump.com -- at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer

Kirk Chewning, Defendant, represented by Ashley Brooke Vinson
Crawford -- avinson@akingump.com -- at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld


NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Construction Contract Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Island Diversified, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Anthony J. Nastasi, Christopher Black,
Nastasi & Associates, Inc., and New England Construction Company,
Inc., Case No. 607312/2015, (N.Y., Sup. Ct., May 12, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to provide full payment
for the labor, materials and equipment the Plaintiff provided at
the Viacom Entrance Lobby Project.

The Defendants operate a commercial construction company in
Hauppauge, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq.
      FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
      333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 1010
      Uniondale, NY 11553
      Telephone: (516) 248-1700
      E-mail: info@forchellilaw.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former Players File Concussion Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Solomon, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that former
college football players at Penn State, Auburn, Georgia, Oregon,
Utah and Vanderbilt are suing the NCAA, their former conference
and -- in some instances -- their former school over how their
concussions were treated.

Six class-action lawsuits filed on May 17 represent the start of
the next wave of concussion litigation in college sports, even as
the NCAA finalizes a $75 million settlement from a different
lawsuit related to concussions. Chicago attorney Jay Edelson, who
is leading this latest effort to sue the NCAA, said 40 to 50
class-action lawsuits will eventually get filed on behalf of tens
of thousands of ex-football players.

"The goal of the suits is to get people who are injured financial
compensation -- something that hasn't happened as of yet,"
Mr. Edelson said.

A federal judge in Illinois gave preliminary approval in January
to the NCAA's settlement from a 2011 lawsuit brought by former
Eastern Illinois football player Adrian Arrington over how the
association handled concussions.  The judge had one significant
caveat: Athletes could still sue their university, conference and
the NCAA as a class under certain terms, meaning the NCAA didn't
receive the blanket immunity it sought.

Mr. Edelson fought the Arrington settlement for two years because
he said it changed from a lawsuit about personal injuries into one
strictly about medical monitoring.  Under the proposed Arrington
settlement, the NCAA will create a $70 million fund to test
thousands of current and former athletes for brain trauma and put
aside $5 million for concussion research.  The settlement doesn't
pay medical costs for ex-players suffering from brain injuries.
Arrington, one of the named plaintiffs, opposed the settlement and
other plaintiffs signed off on it.

Mr. Edelson's current batch of lawsuits tries to include groups of
ex-players at individual schools going back 50 to 60 years until
2010.  The end date is 2010 because that's when the NCAA passed
legislation requiring schools to have a concussion management plan
and return-to-play protocols.

The NCAA and a player's conference are defendants in all of the
May 17 cases.  Some of the lawsuits don't name the university as a
defendant because state schools often have sovereign immunity from
liability, Mr. Edelson said.

"We thought the most efficient case was to file one large suit
against the NCAA, and they blocked that and said in order to
proceed, we have to file on behalf of classes only comprised of
one school and one sport," Mr. Edelson said.  "I think they were
betting we didn't have the resources to do that.  We do.  We sue
Facebook and Google. The NCAA isn't any more intimidating than
those companies."

Mr. Edelson said about 10 law firms are working on the concussions
cases.  Most of the lawsuits will be against universities with
wealthy football programs and likely will get filed in batches
about every other week, he said.

The first lawsuits were filed separately in various districts
around the country, often avoiding the jurisdiction of the ex-
player's university.  In some cases, the jurisdiction was where
the named plaintiff currently lives or where the NCAA or
conference is located.  The initial batch of plaintiffs are:

   * Penn State -- Robert Samuels (defensive back, 1988-89), James
Boyd (safety, 1997-2001) and Eric Ravotti (linebacker, 1990-94)
are suing Penn State, the NCAA and Big Ten in the Northern
District of Illinois. Boyd was a Jim Thorpe Award semifinalist in
2000.  Their suit generically says that all three men currently
suffer with their cognitive functioning, such as loss of memory
and mood swings.

   * Auburn -- Joseph Miller (linebacker, 1996-98) is suing the
NCAA and SEC in the Southern District of Indiana.  The suit claims
he would hit players so hard "that he would see stars or black
out, lose balance, and try to shake it off."  Mr. Miller began to
lose his memory, struggled with depression and anxiety, and sought
treatment, according to the suit.

   * Georgia -- Ronald Hermann (walk-on defensive end, 1984-86) is
suing the NCAA and SEC in the Northern District of California. The
suit claims Hermann suffered "numerous concussions" and it briefly
described an incident in which he "saw stars" after a hit on a
kickoff.  Today, Mr. Hermann's loss of memory "is particularly
challenging, and he has sought out medical treatment in an effort
to find answers that Defendants failed to provide," according to
the suit.

   * Oregon -- Daniel Cook (offensive lineman, 1971-73) is suing
the NCAA and Pac-12 in the Northern District of California.  The
suit claims Cook was knocked out "as many as 15 to 30 times" and
on four occasions lost consciousness lasting two to three minutes.
Cook has been diagnosed with dementia and lives with family
members for extend periods of time, according to the suit.

   * Vanderbilt -- Brandon Walthour (linebacker, 1999-2002) is
suing Vanderbilt, the NCAA and SEC in the Middle District of
Florida in Orlando.  Mr. Walthour suffered "several" concussions
and now has cognitive functioning problems, such as loss of
memory, mood swings, sensitivity to light and blackouts, according
to the suit.

   * Utah -- Richard Seals (defensive lineman, 1995-99) is using
the NCAA and Western Athletic Conference in the District of Utah
Central Division.  He had nine sacks as a senior.  The suit claims
Seals now has cognitive functioning problems, such as loss of
memory and mood swings.

What is being alleged? The lawsuits allege negligence, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied
contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust
enrichment.  For decades, the NCAA, schools and conferences knew
about debilitating long-term dangers of concussions and sub-
concussive injuries "but actively concealed this information to
protect the very profitable business of 'amateur' college
football," the suits claim.  The defendants are accused of
encouraging players to return to play after suffering concussions.

What are the plaintiffs hoping to obtain? All of the lawsuits are
seeking compensatory and punitive damages, including for past,
present and future medical expenses.  The lawyers are seeking
"reasonable" litigation costs and attorneys' fees.

Will these class actions succeed? It remains to be seen.  To get
class certification, lawyers must show there is commonality among
the plaintiffs' claims that supersede any questions affecting
individuals.  Mr. Edelson's lawsuits state that common questions
include whether the NCAA, conference and/or school had a duty to
enact rules related to concussions and adequately warn and educate
players about the dangers and symptoms of brain injuries.
Mr. Edelson fought for two years with Steve Berman and Joseph
Siprut, the lead attorneys for the Arrington plaintiffs who
settled with the NCAA.  Mr. Edelson claimed the Arrington
attorneys left billions of dollars on the table by abandoning the
personal-injuries claims. Mr. Berman has repeatedly defended the
settlement and said documents weren't found showing the NCAA
covered up the risks of concussions, such as what might have been
found with the NFL, which settled its concussion cases for $900
million.

"The NCAA doesn't have the revenues," Mr. Berman told CBS Sports
last July.  "They don't make profits and the schools don't profit
to the extent the NFL does, and I don't think they're as worried
about the PR harm because I think the NFL was worried there were
going to be tons of documents that showed they hid it.  I don't
think the NCAA was worried about that.  We didn't find scores of
documents saying, 'Wow, look at all these players walking around
concussed. We need to keep it from them.'"

Still, there was damaging information that emerged from the
Arrington lawsuit.  For instance, an internal NCAA survey from
2010 showed that 50 percent of responding schools didn't require a
concussed athlete to see a physician.  About half of the schools
in the survey said they would return an athlete to the same
competition after suffering a concussion.

Mr. Berman has also previously said that the NFL's approximately
4,500 personal injury claims represented a much larger group of
ex-players to leverage in a settlement than in the NCAA case.  "In
this case, there are very few individual cases out there," Mr.
Berman said in 2014.  "There's not a groundswell suggesting even a
need for a class action like in the NFL."

Mr. Edelson claims he has about 1,000 clients available to sue
"just about any school we want" in this round of concussion
litigation.  He has created a website in which former players can
contact the lawyers to join cases.  Terms of the NFL's settlement
allow ex-NFL players to pursue claims against the NCAA and/or
universities.

Some ex-players interested in suing might have to weigh whether to
join a class-action or bring an individual suit.  For instance,
Bowling Green recently settled for $712,500 in an individual suit
brought by former offensive lineman Cody Silk, who said he had two
concussions but was allowed to participate in full-contact
practices until suffering a third.

The court initially rejected Silk's claims because he signed a
release of liability to play football and assumed the risk of
injury.  Mr. Silk refiled the claim and a judge agreed that
waivers of liability and releases don't relieve a proprietor from
liability due to wanton or willful misconduct.  Bowling Green said
it settled only to avoid a trial and admitted no wrongdoing.

"For some people, it may not be in their best interest to get into
a class action if they get a lawyer and their damages are large
enough," Mr. Edelson said.  "For most student-athletes, this is
really their only hope.  The damages that a lot of people suffered
aren't significant enough to get lawyers to file suits against an
institution as big as the NCAA, who is going to throw millions of
dollars at these cases."

The NCAA will be in a "very difficult situation" by facing dozens
of personal-injury lawsuits instead of just one, Mr. Edelson said.

"They're going to have to try to win 50 different lawsuits, and I
think that's hard for them to do in this climate," he said.  "The
sentiment about concussions has shifted a lot through the years,
and I don't think they're going to be very excited when these
cases start going to the juries."

Penn State, Vanderbilt, the Big Ten, the SEC and the Pac-12
declined to comment, while the NCAA released the following
statement to CBS Sports.

"These cases appear to be yet another attempt by Mr. Edelson to
interfere with efforts to move forward a settlement in the
Arrington case," NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said.  "The
lawsuits reflect copycat activity and just because they keep
repeating the same arguments does not make them true."


NATURAL HEALTH: Rosen Firm, Levi & Korsinsky Named Co-Lead Attys
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm and Levi & Korsinsky LLP are leading a class action
lawsuit against Natural Health Trends Corp., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016.

In January 2016, two purported class action complaints were filed
against the Company and its top executives. On March 29, 2016, the
court consolidated the purported class actions, appointed two Lead
Plaintiffs, Messrs. Dao and Juan, and appointed the Rosen Law Firm
and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as co-Lead Counsel for the purported
class in the consolidated action. The court also ordered lead
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by April 29, 2016.

The class action complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of
certain of our stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng, and Timothy S.
Davidson, and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Sharng and
Davidson. The class action complaints allege, inter alia, that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the legality of its business operations in China, including
running an allegedly illegal multi-level marketing business. The
class action complaints seek an indeterminate amount of damages,
plus interest and costs.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in these
actions.


NGU INC: Faces Win-Vent Suit Over Construction Contract Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Win-Vent Architectural Windows, on behalf of itself and on behalf
of all others entitled to share in the funds received by Citiquiet
Inc. ("Citiquiet") and NGU Inc. d/b/a Champion Architectural
Window and Door v. NGU Inc. d/b/a Champion Architectural Window
and Door, Citiquiet Inc., Michael Lentin, and "John Doe No. 1"
through "John Doe No.  100", Case No. ____ (N.Y. Super. Ct., May
12, 2016), arises from the failure and
refusal of Citiquiet and Champion to pay for certain windows,
sheet-metal, doors and related materials that Win-Vent provided,
as well as other construction materials and labor supplied by the
other trust fund beneficiaries, for its use at the Projects, and
the unlawful diversion of said trust fund monies for non-trust
purposes.

The Defendants offer soundproof window treatments and services for
residential and commercial clients in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Constantine T. Tzifas, Esq.
      CONSTANTINE T. TZIFAS, PLLC
      286 Madison Avenue - Suite 1801
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 557-5052


NU SKIN: Final Settlement Approval Expected in Mid-2016
-------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that final court approval
of a class action settlement is expected to occur in mid-2016.

The Company currently has litigation pending in a purported class
action lawsuit and derivative claim relating to negative media and
regulatory scrutiny regarding the Company's business in Mainland
China and the associated decline in the Company's stock price. As
further discussed in Note 13, a settlement of the purported class
action has been reached by the parties but remains subject to
court approval. In addition, beginning in February 2014, five
purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah. In May
2014, the court issued an order consolidating the derivative
actions, appointing plaintiffs Amos C. Acoff and Analisa Suderov
as co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action, and appointing
the law firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and The
Weiser Law Firm, P.C. as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action.

In July 2014, a consolidated derivative complaint was filed. The
consolidated derivative complaint purports to assert claims on
behalf of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. for, inter alia, breach of
fiduciary duties for disseminating false and misleading
information, failing to maintain adequate internal controls,
unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement
against M. Truman Hunt, Ritch N. Wood, Steven J. Lund, Nevin N.
Andersen, Neil H. Offen, Daniel W. Campbell, Andrew W. Lipman,
Patricia A. Negr¢n, Thomas R. Pisano, and nominally against Nu
Skin Enterprises, Inc.

The consolidated derivative complaint also purports to assert
claims on behalf of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. for breach of
fiduciary duty for insider selling and misappropriation of
information against Messrs. Wood, Lund and Campbell. The
consolidated derivative complaint alleges that, inter alia, the
defendants allowed materially false and misleading statements to
be made regarding their sales operations in and financial results
derived from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a
pyramid scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities,
and that certain defendants sold common stock on the basis of
material, adverse non-public information. In July 2015, the court
stayed the derivative action pending a final resolution in the
class action lawsuit and denied the Company's motion to dismiss
without prejudice to renewing the motion when the stay is lifted.

On February 22, 2016, the Company entered into a Settlement Term
Sheet (the "Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously
reported putative securities class action consolidated lawsuit.
The litigation was brought against the Company and certain of the
Company's officers (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of a
class consisting of persons or entities that publicly traded the
Company's common stock during the period from May 4, 2011 through
January 17, 2014 and were allegedly damaged thereby.

The terms of the Agreement provide for, among other things, a
settlement payment by, or on behalf of, the Company of $47
million, which the Company recorded as a short-term liability in
its consolidated balance sheet. The settlement payment is expected
to be entirely funded by the Company's insurers, and the Company
recorded the corresponding amount as a short-term receivable in
its consolidated balance sheet. There was no net impact on the
Company's consolidated statement of income.

The settlement remains subject to court approval and may be
cancelled by the Defendants at their sole election in certain
limited circumstances. Final court approval of the settlement is
expected to occur in mid-2016 but could be delayed by
circumstances beyond the Company's control. Upon final approval of
the settlement by the court, the litigation will be dismissed,
with prejudice.


ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: $11-Mil. Class Action Deal Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John G. Koeltl on April 29, 2016, entered an Order and
Final Judgment approving the settlement reached in the securities
class action lawsuit against Orthofix International N.V., Robert
S. Vaters ("Vaters"), Brian McCollum ("McCollum"), and Emily V.
Buxton ("'Buxton").

Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund is the Lead Plaintiff
in the case.

The Court finally certifies this Action as a class action with the
Class defined as:

     "all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of
Orthofix International N. V. ("Orthofix") between March 2, 2010
and July 29, 2013, inclusive (the 'Class Period") and were damaged
thereby. Excluded from the Class are: (I) Defendants and members
of the immediate family of any Defendant; (2) any entity in which
any Defendant has or, during the Class Period, had a controlling
interest; (3) the officers and directors of Orthofix during the
Class Period; and (4) the legal representatives, agents,
executors, heirs, successors, or assigns of any of the foregoing
excluded persons or entities, who assert any interest in Orthofix
common stock through or on behalf of any such excluded persons or
entities."

The Settlement creates a fund of $11,000,000 in cash that has been
paid into an escrow account for the benefit of the Class pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement, and that Class Members who submit
acceptable Proof of Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement
that occurred because of the efforts of Lead Counsel.

In a separate Order, the Court approved Lead Counsel's application
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Lead
Counsel's and Lead Plaintiffs Litigation Expenses.  Specifically,
Lead Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 27.5% of
the Settlement Fund, or $3,025,000; and $201,346.65 as
reimbursement for Lead Counsel's litigation expenses (which fees
and expenses shall be paid to Lead Counsel from the Settlement
Fund).

The Lead Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension fund
is awarded its expenses, including lost wages, in the amount of
$1,853.60, which represents its reasonable costs and expenses
directly related to the representation of the Class.

Orthofix International N.V. 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 on August 14,
2013, a securities class action complaint against the Company,
currently styled Tejinder Singh v. Orthofix International N.V., et
al. (No.:1:13-cv-05696-JGK), was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York arising out
of the then anticipated restatement of the Company's'prior
financial statements. Since the date of original filing, the
complaint has been amended.

The lead plaintiff's complaint, as amended, purports to bring
claims on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 2, 2010 and July 29, 2013. The complaint
asserts that the Company and four of its former executive
officers, Alan W. Milinazzo, Robert S. Vaters, Brian McCollum, and
Emily V. Buxton (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"),
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5") by making false or misleading
statements in or relating to the Company's financial statements.
The complaint further asserts that the Individual Defendants were
liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
for any violation by the Company of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act or Rule 10b-5. As relief, the complaint requests compensatory
damages on behalf of the proposed class and lead plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 6, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss as to Mr. Milinazzo and denied it with respect to the
Company and the other Individual Defendants.

On October 22, 2015, following negotiations facilitated by an
independent mediator, the Company, the remaining Individual
Defendants and their insurers reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class it
purports to represent, to settle and release all claims with
respect to this matter and to dismiss the action with prejudice
subject to final court approval. Under the terms of the agreement
in principle, the Company, through its insurers, would make a
payment to the plaintiff, and the class it purports to represent,
to resolve all claims related to the matter, including any claims
for plaintiff counsel's fees and expenses.

On December 7, 2015, all parties to the action executed and filed
with the Court a proposed settlement agreement whose terms are
consistent with the agreement in principle.  On December 18, 2015,
the Court entered a preliminary approval order which, among other
things, preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement, subject to final approval at the hearing
scheduled for April 29, 2016.

The Company has previously incurred and expensed fees and expenses
in connection with this matter up to and exceeding its insurance
policy deductible and its insurers have undertaken to cover the
full amount of the settlement payment, if the proposed settlement
is finally approved by the Court. The Company accrued both the
amount of the settlement payment under the agreement in principle,
and a corresponding insurance receivable from its insurers, with
respect to these matters.

A copy of the terms of the Settlement and plan of allocation is
available at https://is.gd/Uc846S

A copy of the Court's Order and Final Judgment is available at
https://is.gd/QQre8g

A copy of the Court's Fee ruling is available at
https://is.gd/UvfAHQ

Orthofix is a diversified, global medical device company.

Counsel to Lead Plaintiff and the Class are:

     Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
     S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
     Genevieve Fontan, Esq.
     Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
     1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     Tel: (202) 408-4600
     E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
             dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
             gfontan@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
     Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
     190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: 312-357-0370
     Fax: 312-357-0369
     E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

Counsel to Orthofix:

     David Wertheimer, Esq.
     HOGAN LOVELLS US LLC
     875 Third Avenue
     New Yor, NY 10022
     Tel: 212-918-3000
     Fax: 212-918-3100

The Claims Administrator is:

     Strategic Claims Services
     600 N Jackson Street - Suite 3
     Media, PA 19063
     Phone: 866-274-4004
     E-mail: info@strategicclaims.net


OUTERWALL INC: Still Defends "Piechur" Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall 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 continues
to defend a class action lawsuit by Laurie Piechur.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in
the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things,
Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois
Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract
Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and
other relief. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In
February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit
Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved
for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment.
The court denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February
2012. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012,
and an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The
court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the
hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the
plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her
claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the
Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act.

On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action
motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied
plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial
of class certification.

Redbox moved to dismiss all remaining claims on mootness grounds,
and the Court granted Redbox's motion on December 11, 2014. The
plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015. Oral argument was held
November 10, 2015. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's
rulings on January 11, 2016. Plaintiffs filed a petition for
review with the Illinois Supreme Court on February 16, 2016, and
Redbox filed an answer on March 8, 2016.

"We continue to believe that the claims against us are without
merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter
should plaintiff seek further appellate review. Currently, no
accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate," the
Company said.

Outerwall is provider of automated retail solutions offering
convenient products and services that benefit consumers and drive
incremental retail traffic and revenue for retailers.


PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Flo & Eddie Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that te Company's appeal in
the class action lawsuit by Flo & Eddie Inc. remains pending.

On April 17, 2014, UMG Recordings, Inc., Sony Music Entertainment,
Capitol Records, LLC, Warner Music Group Corp. and ABKCO Music and
Records, Inc. filed suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York. The complaint claims common law
copyright infringement and unfair competition arising from
allegations that Pandora owes royalties for the public performance
of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972.

In October 2015, the parties reached an agreement ("pre-1972
settlement") whereby we agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of
$90 million. The settlement resolves all past claims as to our use
of pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by the plaintiffs and
enables us, without any additional payment, to reproduce, perform
and broadcast such recordings in the United States through
December 31, 2016. This agreement was approved by our board of
directors and executed on October 21, 2015. Pursuant to this
settlement, we paid the plaintiffs $60 million in October 2015 and
the plaintiffs dismissed the case with prejudice.  As a result,
cost of revenue - content acquisition costs increased by $65.4
million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2015, of which
$57.9 million was related to a one-time cumulative charge to cost
of revenue - content acquisition costs related to pre-1972 spins
played through September 30, 2015. The remaining charge of $24.6
million will be recorded in cost of revenue - content acquisition
costs in 2016 based on expected streaming of pre-1972 recordings
over the period. The pre-72 settlement further requires that we
make four additional installment payments of $7.5 million each.
The first was paid in December 2015 and the second was paid in
March 2016. The remaining two installments will be paid on or
before July 1, 2016 and October 1, 2016.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15,
1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute. This motion was
denied, and we have appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. As a result, the district court litigation has been
stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's review.

Pandora is a music discovery platform offering a personalized
experience for each of the Company's listeners wherever and
whenever they want to listen to music -- whether through earbuds,
car speakers or live on stage.


PANDORA MEDIA: "Sheridan" Class Suits Remain Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action lawsuit
by the Sheridans remain stayed.

The Company said, "On September 14, 2015, Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan, et al filed a class action suit against Pandora Media,
Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint alleges common law misappropriation,
unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of
California rights of publicity arising from allegations that we
owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings
recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015, the
Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court
action pending the Ninth Circuit's review of Pandora's appeal in
Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar
allegations."

"On September 16, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a
second class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the
federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of
New York right of publicity, unfair competition and unjust
enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the
public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February
15, 1972. On October 28, 2015 the Court granted the parties'
stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Second
Circuit's review of Sirius XM's appeal in the Flo & Eddie et al.
v. Sirius XM matter, which involves similar allegations.

"On October 17, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a
third class action suit against us in the federal district court
for the Northern District of Illinois ("Third Class Action Suit").
The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation
of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, conversion,
and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe
royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a
motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the Second
Circuit's decision. The motion to stay was denied, and the motion
to dismiss remains pending.

"On October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a
fourth class action suit against us in the federal district court
for the District of New Jersey ("Fourth Class Action Suit"). The
complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, unfair
competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we
owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings
recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora
filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the
Second Circuit's decision. Both motions remain pending."

Pandora is a music discovery platform offering a personalized
experience for each of the Company's listeners wherever and
whenever they want to listen to music -- whether through earbuds,
car speakers or live on stage.


PANERA BREAD: Defending Class Suits by Former Employees
-------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend class action lawsuits by former employees.

On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a
former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit
was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.

In addition, more recently, several other purported class action
lawsuits based on similar claims and seeking similar damages were
filed against the subsidiary: on October 30, 2015 in the
California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino by Jazmin
Dabney, a former subsidiary employee; on November 3, 2015 in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of California by
Clara Manchester, a former subsidiary employee; and on November
30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of Yolo by
Tanner Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant manager.

The Company believes its subsidiary has meritorious defenses to
each of the claims in these lawsuits and is prepared to vigorously
defend the allegations therein. There can be no assurance,
however, that the Company's subsidiary will be successful, and an
adverse resolution of any one of these lawsuits could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position and results of operations in the period in which one or
all of these lawsuits are resolved. The Company is not presently
able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any, related to
the lawsuits.


PAPA JOHNS: "Durling" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Recovery of Pay Cuts
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Durling, Chris Bellaspica, Tom Wolff, Michael Morris and
Richard Sobol, for themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Papa John's International, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 7:16-cv-03592 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks all required
wages due, compensatory damages and liquidated damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees and reimbursement
of all costs and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, New York Labor Law, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968,
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the Delaware Minimum Wage Act.

Durling, Bellaspica, Wolff, Morris and Sobol worked as a part-time
delivery drivers for a Papa John's Pizza store in New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware respectively. They claim to
have been denied minimum wages, subjected to illegal deductions
and denied reimbursement for business related expenses.

Papa John's International, Inc. is Delaware corporation and
maintains its corporate headquarters and principal place of
business in Jeffersontown, Kentucky. It is a global pizza
restaurant chain.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
     D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
     445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Tel: (914) 298-3281
     Email: jfrei-pearson@FBFGLaw.com

          - and -

     David J. Cohen
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     604 Spruce Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Tel: (215) 873-4836
     Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

          - and -

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: 312-233-1550
     Fax: 312-233-1560
     Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            rstephan@stephanzouras.com


PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Nieto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Nieto v. Pizzati Enterprises, Inc., Pizzati Labor Services,
Inc., Miriam Pizzati, and Maria Murillo, Case No. 2:16-cv-05352
(E.D. Lo., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants offers siding, roofing, stucco, gutters, painting,
flooring, drywall, decking, and fencing projects in Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
      E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

         - and -

      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 483-8008
      E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

         - and -

      Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lordi" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony V. Lordi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Progressive Financial Services, Inc. and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 2:16-cv-02703-JMV-MF (D.N.J., May 12, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Progressive Financial Services, Inc. operates a debt collection
firm in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
              jkj@legaljones.com


RCI PLBG: Faces "Faulkner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Faulkner, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RCI PLBG, Inc. and Affinity Human Resources,
LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02401 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

RCI PLBG, Inc. operates a plumbing company located at 555 Ave of
the Americas, New York, NY 10011.

Affinity Human Resources, LLC operates staffing company located at
2870 West Lake Road Cazenovia, NY 13035.

Dwayne Faulkner is a pro se plaintiff.


RCN TELECOM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Portman" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Portman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Case No. 2016CH06580 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., May 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making unsolicited calls to the cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

RCN Telecom Services, LLC provides consumer telephone and internet
service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
      Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICE, LLC
      155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
      E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
              dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com

         - and -

      Larry P. Smith, Esq.
      SMITHMARCO, P.C.
      205 North Michigan A venue, Suite 2940
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 324-3532
      Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
      E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com


REGEIS CARE: Faces "Richardson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loren Richardson, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regeis Care Center,
LLC, Chaim Sieger, and Abraham Sieger, Case No. 1:16-cv-03538
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a nursing and rehabilitation center
in Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis M. Leon, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              LML@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


RBS HOLDINGS: Distribution in Madoff Class Action Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
RBS Holdings N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the District Court on
March 29, 2016, approved a preliminary distribution to successful
plaintiffs in the Madoff-related class action against various
Tremont entities which settled in 2011. RBS's share, estimated at
$159 million, will be recognised in 2016


ROTONDA GOLF: Faces "Werman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Werman and Ronald Segui, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Rotonda Golf Partners, LLC, Rotonda Golf
Partners II, LLC, William Stine and David Kelly, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00356-UA-CM (M.D. Cal., May 12, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate golf courses on the West coast of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


SANDISK CORP: Summary Judgment Granted in Ritz Camera Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that in the Ritz Camera
Federal Antitrust Class Action, the court has granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in
SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive
Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.

On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting
in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On
September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to
file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the
District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss
based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process
antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.

On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2,
2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to
the District Court. On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted
Ritz's motion to substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7
Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this
case. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM
Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a
cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a
named plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims.

On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 22, 2015,
the District Court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment without prejudice to refile its motion once the class
notice has been approved and the period for class members to opt
out has expired.

After the opt-out period expired, the Company renewed its motion
for summary judgment. On April 29, 2016, the court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in
SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims.


SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Antitrust Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that discovery remains
stayed until after completion of the pleading stage in the federal
antitrust class action against SanDisk, et al.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"),
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under
federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law.
The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs allege that the Company (along
with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate
the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in
violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to
pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to,
and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic
Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC .

On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.
On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision reversing the
District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The appeals court denied the defendants' petition for rehearing
and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District
Court.

On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the U.S. Supreme
Court subsequently denied. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. On
February 27, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
the District Court granted, with leave to amend, on September 30,
2015.

On November 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint. On November 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss which is pending. Discovery remains stayed until after
completion of the pleading stage.


SANDISK CORP: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that the defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss the federal securities class action
against SanDisk et al.

Beginning on March 30, 2015, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Glore v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on March 30, 2015;
Bowers v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 6, 2015; City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. SanDisk
Corp. et al. filed on May 27, 2015). Two of the complaints are
allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015,
and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
the Company's securities between April 16, 2014 and April 15,
2015.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs on behalf of the putative classes.

On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed
Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as
lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
August 2015. On September 30, 2015, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss.

On January 22, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion and
dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On February 22,
2016, the court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs
Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension &
Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and
Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund; and
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund (collectively, the
"Institutional Investor Group"). On March 23, 2016, the
Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 29, 2016.


SANDISK CORP: Merger Class Action Closed
----------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that the merger-related
shareholder class actions have been closed.

Commencing on November 4, 2015, two alleged stockholders of
SanDisk filed putative class actions captioned Michael Cloud v.
SanDisk Corp., et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-287706, and Jaromir
Koutnak v. Sanjay Mehrotra, et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-288079,
each in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Santa Clara (together, the "California Actions"). The defendants
are SanDisk, the members of SanDisk's board of directors, Western
Digital, and Schrader Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned
indirect subsidiary of Western Digital ("Merger Sub"). The
complaints in the California Actions allege that SanDisk's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to SanDisk's
stockholders in connection with the merger agreement and the
transaction contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaints
allege, among other things, that the proposed merger arises out of
a flawed process which resulted in an unfair price for SanDisk's
shares and a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaints
also allege that the terms of the merger agreement will deter
other purported interested parties from coming forward with a
superior offer. The California Actions further allege that
SanDisk, Western Digital, or Merger Sub aided and abetted the
SanDisk directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 26,
2016, the plaintiff in the Cloud action filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint adds allegations that defendants
caused Western Digital to file a registration statement that
contains misleading statements and omits other information about
the proposed transaction. The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
an order enjoining defendants from consummating the proposed
merger, rescinding the proposed merger if it is consummated,
awarding damages, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs. On
February 26, 2016, the plaintiff in the Cloud action voluntarily
dismissed his complaint without prejudice. On March 9, 2016, the
plaintiff in the Koutnak action voluntarily dismissed his
complaint without prejudice. Both cases are now closed.


SANGHA SUNDIP SINGH: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Octaviano Juarez, Angel Mendez Mendez, Noe Moises Ramirez Salazar,
Patricio Reyes Venegas, Alejandro Rivera Fonseca, Daniel Ramirez
Cuevas, Sergio Gomez Gonzales, Arturo Santos, Abel Isidro B.,
Pablo Lopez Cruz, Angelina Isidro B., Honorina Cruz Salinas,
Rolando Juarez Martinez, Manuel Juarez Ramirez And Juana Mayoral
Silva, individually and on behalf of other current and former
employees, Plaintiffs, v. Rafael Villafan, Demi AG INC. and Sangha
Sundip Singh, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-at-00359 (E.D. Cal., May
13, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest and penalties
under California Labor Law, Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them for work they
performed, failed to provide pay stubs, failed to pay Plaintiffs
at the time of discharge, failed to provide tools and equipment,
failed to allow the inspection or copying of employment records or
personnel records, failed to allow inspection and failed to
provide a written notice of terms and conditions of employment at
the time of hire.

Rafael Villafan operates as a farm labor contractor based in
Fresno County.

Demi AG, Inc. is a California Corporation located at 1625 Howard
Rd. #249, Madera, CA 93637. It operates as a farm labor
contractor.

Sangha Sundip Singh owns vineyards in Selma, CA where Rafael
Villafan and Demi AG, Inc. provided contractual labor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Estella M. Cisneros, Esq.
     Elizabeth A. Aakhus, Esq.
     CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE INC.
     3747 E. Shields Ave.
     Fresno, CA 93726
     Tel: (559) 441-8721
     Fax: (559) 441-0724

          - and -

     Blanca A. Ba¤uelos, Esq.
     CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
     145 E. Weber Avenue
     Stockton, CA 95202
     Tel: (209) 946-0609
     Fax: (209) 946-5730

          - and -

     Aida S. Macedo, Esq.
     MILES SEARS & EANNI
     2844 Fresno St.
     Fresno, CA 93721
     Tel: (559) 486-5200
     Fax: (559) 486-5240


SANGHA SUNDIP SINGH: "Juarez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Octaviano Juarez, Angel Mendez Mendez, Noe Moises Ramirez Salazar,
Patricio Reyes Venegas, Alejandro Rivera Fonseca, Daniel Ramirez
Cuevas, Sergio Gomez Gonzales, Arturo Santos, Abel Isidro B.,
Pablo Lopez Cruz, Angelina Isidro B., Honorina Cruz Salinas,
Rolando Juarez Martinez, Manuel Juarez Ramirez and Juana Mayoral
Silva, individually and on behalf of other current and former
employees, Plaintiffs, v. Rafael Villafan, Demi AG INC. and Sangha
Sundip Singh, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00688-DAD-SAB (E.D.
Cal., May 13, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest and
penalties under California Labor Law, Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them for work they
performed, failed to provide pay stubs, failed to pay Plaintiffs
at the time of discharge, failed to provide tools and equipment,
failed to allow the inspection or copying of employment records or
personnel records, failed to allow inspection and failed to
provide a written notice of terms and conditions of employment at
the time of hire.

Rafael Villafan operates as a farm labor contractor based in
Fresno County.

Demi AG, Inc. is a California Corporation located at 1625 Howard
Rd. #249, Madera, CA 93637. It operates as a farm labor
contractor.

Sangha Sundip Singh owns vineyards in Selma, CA where Rafael
Villafan and Demi AG, Inc. provided contractual labor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Estella M. Cisneros, Esq.
     Elizabeth A. Aakhus, Esq.
     CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE INC.
     3747 E. Shields Ave.
     Fresno, CA 93726
     Tel: (559) 441-8721
     Fax: (559) 441-0724

          - and -

     Blanca A. Ba¤uelos, Esq.
     CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
     145 E. Weber Avenue
     Stockton, CA 95202
     Tel: (209) 946-0609
     Fax: (209) 946-5730

          - and -

     Aida S. Macedo, Esq.
     MILES SEARS & EANNI
     2844 Fresno St.
     Fresno, CA 93721
     Tel: (559) 486-5200
     Fax: (559) 486-5240


SERVICE CORPORATION: "Samborksy" Case Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International 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
claims in the case, Charles Samborsky, et al, individually and on
behalf of those persons similarly situated, v. SCI California
Funeral Services, Inc., et al ; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
Central District-Central Civil West Courthouse, have been sent to
arbitration.

This lawsuit was filed in April 2014 against an SCI subsidiary and
purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who worked as
family service counselors in California since April 2010. The
plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of state
laws regulating wage and hour pay. The plaintiffs seek unpaid
wages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, interest, and injunctive relief. The claims have been sent
to arbitration.

"We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this
lawsuit," the Company said.


SINGING RIVER: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Lee, writing for Sun Herald, reports that U.S. District
Judge Louis Guirola Jr. made it clear to a packed courtroom
May 16 that he is not looking for culprits, but instead must
determine whether Singing River Health System can pay $150 million
over 35 years to settle a pension failure that has jeopardized
retirement payments to hundreds of current and former health
system employees.

Judge Guirola was set to decide after the hearing, which was
expected to continue May 17, whether he should approve the
settlement as fair and reasonable on behalf of 2,067 retirement
plan members.

The settlement amounts to $55 million SRHS failed to contribute to
its pension plan from 2009-14, when the health system led
employees to believe the contributions were being made.  Paying
over 35 years brings SRHS's total owed to almost $150 million with
interest.  The money will be used to pay monthly benefits to
retirees.

Attorney Steve Simpson, the court-appointed trustee now overseeing
the retirement fund, said its health hinges on SRHS settlement
payments, investments and interest earned.  He said he has no way
of telling retirees how much their checks will be each month.  The
settlement represents the amount SRHS failed to pay, not what is
needed to fully fund retirement benefits going forward.

"When people say, 'Can you tell me how much I will get?'"
Mr. Simpson said, "I have to say, 'No.'"

Under the proposed settlement, attorneys representing pension-plan
members would receive legal fees of $6.4 million paid over four
years.

Attorney Jim Reeves of Biloxi is lead attorney for pension-plan
members who struck the settlement deal with SRHS in a class-action
lawsuit.

During the hearing, Mr. Reeves told Judge Guirola that 94.6
percent of plan members are willing to accept the settlement.

Attorney Harvey Barton of Pascagoula and Earl Denham of Ocean
Springs represent more than 200 plan members who oppose
settlement.  They say monthly retirement payments and amounts are
not guaranteed.  The settlement also releases SRHS and Jackson
County, which owns the health system, from further liability over
the pension failure.

Mr. Reeves presented testimony in favor of the settlement, calling
SRHS's chief financial officer, Lee Bond, to testify. Bond said
the hospital has cut spending over the past two years so that it
is now operating at a slim profit.  He believes SRHS can make the
required annual settlement payments.

Mr. Barton then asked Mr. Bond if one of his employees was
shredding financial documents after plan members filed lawsuits
over the pension failure in late 2014.

Judge Guirola shook his finger at Mr. Barton, saying, "Now, wait a
minute, I'm running this.

" . . . Now, let's say they took documents to the shredder and
shredded the dickens out of them. How is that going to help me
determine whether this settlement is fair?"

Judge Guirola said he was not presiding over the hearing to
determine if there had been any wrongdoing, or if anyone should be
removed from office over the pension failure. Several retirees in
the packed courtroom moaned.

Under the settlement terms, Jackson County will pay more than $13
million toward indigent care, freeing SRHS funds for annual
settlement payments into the retirement fund.

Trustee Simpson can amend the plan based on its financial
position, including the amount paid in retirement benefits. But he
would have to give plan members 60 days' notice and secure
approval from Jackson County Chancery Court.

Mr. Reeves' called several of his clients to testify about why
they signed onto the settlement.  They said they feared that SRHS
would terminate the pension plan and they would receive no
benefits. They also said they believe the settlement is fair to
plan members.

Messrs. Barton and Denham were set to call their witnesses May 17,
including retirees who are suing SRHS in state court and oppose
the settlement.


SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss Due June 20
---------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's Motion
to Dismiss is due on June 20, 2016.

On April 6, 2015, Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 3:15-
02407), alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (the "District of New Jersey"), against the Company
and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan, the Company's President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark T. Greenquist, the Company's
Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants").

On September 21, 2015, in response to motions subsequently filed
with the District of New Jersey by four other purported
shareholders of the Company seeking status as lead plaintiff, the
District of New Jersey appointed Richard Sousa as lead plaintiff
(the "Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from October 23, 2014
to March 24, 2015, and seeks unspecified damages. The principal
allegation contained in the Complaint is that the Defendants made
misleading forward-looking statements concerning the Company's
fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance.

On September 22, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer (the
"Motion to Transfer") this case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff filed his
opposition to the Motion to Transfer on October 5, 2015, and the
Company filed a reply to the Motion to Transfer on October 13,
2015.

On March 21, 2016, the District of New Jersey granted the
Company's Motion to Transfer. Thus, this case will now be
litigated in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "Court") (Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10657-GAO).
The Plaintiff's amended and operative complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") was due by May 4, 2016, and the Company's Motion to
Dismiss is due on June 20, 2016. The Company believes that the
Defendants have meritorious defenses to the allegations made in
the Complaint and does not expect the results of this suit to have
a material effect on its business or consolidated financial
statements.

Sonus Networks, Inc. is a provider of networked solutions for
communications service providers (e.g., telecommunications,
wireless and cable service providers) and enterprises to help them
advance, protect and unify their communications and improve
collaboration.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Denies Allegations in "Lacey" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has
filed an answer denying allegations in the case, Carla Lacey and
Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and
derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation.

A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in
February 2016 relating to the 2012 acquisition of 99.999% of MGE
by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de
C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM
Acquisition"), the Company's entry into a power purchase agreement
with MGE in 2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"), and the
2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican Operations
to MGE for the construction of two power plants to supply power to
the Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan Restructuring").
The action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its
common stockholders.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the CIEM Acquisition, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and
the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of
fiduciary duties and the Company's charter.  The Company has filed
an answer denying these allegations.


ST JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: "Garbaccio" Sues Over Underfunded Pension
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the case captioned Donna Garbaccio, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. St.
Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center And Subsidiaries, St.
Joseph's Healthcare System, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20, Members
of the Committee that administers the St. Joseph's Hospital and
Medical Center Pension Plan, John and Jane Does 21-40, Members of
the Executive Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees, each an
individual and John and Jane Does 41-60, each an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02740-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., May 13, 2016),
seeks revision of their benefit plan managed by the Defendants to
comply with the regulations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.  The plaintiffs also seek disgorgement of
any profits accumulated resulting from fiduciary breaches, civil
monetary penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's
fees and expenses as provided by ERISA.

Defendant St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, by and through
its subsidiaries and/or affiliates operates a healthcare
conglomerate in New Jersey and provides healthcare services in the
communities it serves.

Garbaccio is a vested participant in the St. Joseph's Hospital and
Medical Center Pension Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott Lempert, Esq.
     Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
     Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
     Kira L. Hettinger, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
     1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
     Suite 500, West Tower
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: (202) 408-4600
     Fax: (202) 408-4699
     Email: slempert@cohenmilstein.com
            khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
            myau@cohenmilstein.com
            khettnger@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Havila C. Unrein, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Tel.: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
            lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            hunrein@kellerrohrback.com


STONEWOOD ALE HOUSE: "Marin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
David Marin individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stonewood Ale House and Louis J.
Gatziolis, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05224 (N.D.
Ill., May 14, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages due,
statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant called Stonewood Ale House located
at 601 Mall Drive, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173 where the Plaintiff
prepared and cooked food. Plaintiff allegedly did not receive meal
breaks and was denied overtime pay. Defendants also allegedly
altered and manipulated employee schedules to conceal any overtime
hours worked by employees.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Tel: 312-878-1302
     Fax: (888) 270-8983
     Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


SUNRUN INC: "Cohen" Securities Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Cohen, David Moss and Roxanne Xenakis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 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. CIV538304 (Cal.
Super. April 21, 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-02570-WHA.

Defendants are accused of misstatements and omissions in their
Registration Statement 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
members 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


SUNRUN INC: "Nunez" Class Suit Removed to N. Dist. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jackie L. Nunez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunrun Inc.
("Sunrun"), Lynn Jurich, Bob Komin, Edward Fenster, Jameson
McJunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Beau Peelle,
Eren Omer Atesmen, Reginald Norris, William Elmore, Foundation
Capital VI, L.P., and Foundation Capital Management Co. VI, LLC,
Case No. CIV 538593, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02573-LHK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Securities Act.

Sunrun Inc. is a provider of residential solar electricity and
operates the "second largest fleet of residential solar energy
systems" in the United States.

The Defendant is 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
      E-mail: AWhite@mofo.com
              RWebb@mofo.com
              SWang@mofo.com


SUNRUN INC: "Mancy" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Greg Mancy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,  v. Sunrun Inc.
("Sunrun"), Lynn Jurich, Bob Komin, Edward Fenster, Jameson
McJunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Beau Peelle,
Eren Omer Atesmen, Reginald Norris, William Elmore, Foundation
Capital VI, L.P., and Foundation Capital Management Co. VI, LLC,
Case No. CIV 538303, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02572-LHK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Securities Act.

Sunrun Inc. is a provider of residential solar electricity and
operates the "second largest fleet of residential solar energy
systems" in the United States.

The Defendant is 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
      E-mail: AWhite@mofo.com
              RWebb@mofo.com
              SWang@mofo.com


SUNRUN INC: "Pytel" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jeffrey L. Pytel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunrun Inc.
("Sunrun"), Lynn Jurich, Bob Komin, Edward Fenster, Jameson
McJunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Beau Peelle,
Eren Omer Atesmen, Reginald Norris, William Elmore, Foundation
Capital VI, L.P., and Foundation Capital Management Co. VI, LLC,
Case No. CIV 538215, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02566 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Securities Act.

Sunrun Inc. is a provider of residential solar electricity and
operates the "second largest fleet of residential solar energy
systems" in the United States.

The Defendant is 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
      E-mail: AWhite@mofo.com
              RWebb@mofo.com
              SWang@mofo.com


TAMPA FOOD: "Evering" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kianna Evering, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tampa Food and Hospitality,
Inc., Hospitality Company of Central Florida, Inc. and Louis
Mendel, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01192-JDW-TBM
(M.D. Fla., May 12, 2016), seeks minimum pay, back wages and
overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate Scores Gentlemen's Club & Prime Steakhouse
located in Tampa, Florida where Evering worked as an exotic
dancer. She claims her only compensation was tips from patrons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam B. Kenner, Esq.
     KENNER & CUMMINGS PLLC, Suite 2410
     175 SW 7th Avenue
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (305) 384-7205
     Fax: (305) 384-7371
     Email: adam@kennercummings.com


TARGET CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") disclosed that on
May 17, 2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf
of its client Police Retirement System of St. Louis ("St. Louis
Police") against Target Corporation ("Target" or the "Company")
(NYSE:TGT), and certain of its senior executives (collectively
"Defendants").  The action, which is captioned Police Retirement
System of St. Louis v. Target Corporation,
No. 16-cv-01315 (D. Minn.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded common
stock of Target between February 27, 2013 and May 19, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's launch of its
operations in Canada.  Target operates general merchandise
discount stores throughout the U.S.  The Company sells a wide
variety of household essentials, music and movies, electronics,
clothing, and other items, through its traditional stores, its
website, and via direct shipment from vendors or third-parties.
The Company distributes its merchandise through a network of
distribution centers that rely on sophisticated supply chain
management infrastructure and information technology systems.

On January 13, 2011, Target announced that it would expand its
retail operations into Canada, with plans to open between 100 and
150 stores in the country during 2013 and 2014.  Beginning on
February 27, 2013, and continuing through the Class Period,
Defendants repeatedly offered positive statements concerning
Target's current and projected operations in Canada.  In part
because of the purported success that Target was slated to achieve
during fiscal 2013 in its Canadian segment, Defendants also
provided the Company's shareholders with strong financial and
operational guidance for fiscal 2013.  As a result of these
misrepresentations, Target stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Unbeknownst to investors, Target's Canadian expansion encountered
operational problems from the start.  On May 20, 2014, prior to
the trading session, news reports circulated that Target had fired
Tony Fisher, the Company's president of Canadian operations,
confirming that the string of weak results from Target's Canadian
operations preceding Mr. Fisher's termination were not simply
growing pains associated with normal store openings, but rather
due to significant undisclosed operational issues.  Eventually,
after the Class Period on January 15, 2015, Target revealed the
Company would discontinue its Canadian operations and that Target
Canada Co. had filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada. Each of
these disclosures caused a material decline in the price of Target
stock.

If you purchased or acquired publicly traded Target common stock
during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may
be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota no later than July 18, 2016.  A lead
plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members
of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com

You can view a copy of the complaint online at:

       http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

St. Louis Police is represented by Labaton Sucharow --
http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest
pension funds in the United States and internationally with
collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half
century of securities litigation experience, 60 full-time
attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts,
and forensic accountants.  Offices are located in New York, NY,
and Wilmington, DE.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Court Re-Opened Discovery in Antitrust Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has re-
opened discovery in the antitrust class action lawsuit filed by
registered nurses in San Antonio.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported
class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San
Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems,
including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San
Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Sec.1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to
trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The case had been stayed since 2008; however, in July 2015, the
court lifted the stay and re-opened discovery.

"Because these proceedings are at an early stage, it is impossible
at this time to predict their outcome with any certainty; however,
we believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not
have a material effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations."

"We will continue to seek to defeat class certification and
vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' allegations,"
the Company said.


TEREX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has
received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits
as follows:

   * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

   * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

   * On August 21, 2015, a purported Terex stockholder, Bernard
Stern, filed a class action complaint challenging the Merger in
the Delaware Chancery Court, and on August 26, 2015, a purported
Terex stockholder, Joseph Weinstock, filed a class action
complaint challenging the Merger in the Delaware Chancery Court.
The complaints name as defendants Terex Corporation, Konecranes
Plc, Konecranes, Inc., Konecranes Acquisition Company LLC and the
members of the Board of Directors of Terex. On March 22, 2016, the
plaintiff in the Stern action filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice of his action, which was approved by
the Court.

The first two lawsuits generally cover the period from February
2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain
of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained
false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the
stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of
fiduciary duties.

The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors.

The complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company
is unable to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for
these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks
amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in
addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual
defendants in its favor.

The lawsuit concerning the Merger seeks, among other relief, an
order enjoining or rescinding the Merger and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs on the grounds that the Company's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duty in connection with
entering into the business combination agreement and approving the
Merger. The complaint further alleges that Terex Corporation,
Konecranes Plc, Konecranes, Inc. and Konecranes Acquisition
Company LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Company's Board of Directors. It is possible that
this complaint will be further amended to make additional claims
and/or that additional lawsuits making similar or additional
claims relating to the Merger will be brought, including a
refiling of the lawsuit that was voluntarily dismissed.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these
matters.

Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the
securities lawsuit. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative
lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold
pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with
the securities lawsuit. The lawsuit pertaining to the Merger is at
a very early stage and by agreement with the plaintiff, the time
for defendants to respond has not come due.


TOTAL COMMUNITY: "Gallagher" Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Victoria Gallagher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Total Community Options, Inc., Total
Longterm Care, Inc., Total Community Care, LLC, Total Longterm
Care Solutions, LLC, Seniors! Inc., Innovative Care Management,
Inc., Johnson Adult Day Program, Inc. and Total Community Options
Foundation, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01115 (D. Colo., May 13,
2016) seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs resulting from negligence, breach of implied
contract, invasion of privacy and violation of Colorado Uniform
Trade Secrets Act.

Defendants collectively conduct business as "InnovAge." Gallagher
was employed by Defendants from 2005 through 2015.

A cyber-security breach compromised the security of the private,
sensitive, and confidential information including Social Security
numbers, salary and financial information, tax information, first
and last names, addresses, and tax form W-2 information of the
Defendants' employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Kalish, Esq.
      HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
      730 17th Street, Suite 900
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: 303-991-3075
      E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com

          - and -

      Donald W. Heyrich, Esq.
      Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq.
      HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
      600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: 206-838-2504
      E-mail: dheyrich@hkm.com
              jrittereiser@hkm.com

          - and -

     Peter D. Stutheit, Esq.
      STUTHEIT KALIN LLC
      308 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 325
      Portland, OR 97204d
      Telephone: (503) 493-7488
      Email: peter@peterstutheit.com


TRANSAM TRUCKING: May Amend Answers to "Blair" Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale of the District of Texas granted
defendant's motion to amend its answer in the case LARRY BLAIR, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. TRANSAM TRUCKING INC., Defendant, Case No. 09-
2443-EFM-KGG (D. Kan.)

Plaintiffs filed their initial class action complaint on August
21, 2009, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA), and the Kansas Minimum
Wage and Maximum Hours Law (KMWMHL). Defendant filed its initial
Answer on October 14, 2009. Plaintiffs were subsequently granted
leave to file an amended complaint, to which the defendant asked
for a more definite statement, which was denied by Magistrate
Judge Bostwick.

The suit was subsequently stayed pending a decision by the Kansas
Supreme Court in the matter of Brown v. Ford Storage and Moving
Co. Inc., No. 09-101915-A. Magistrate Judge Gale entered a
Scheduling Order on October 22, 2012. The case proceeded through
discovery until the parties filed motions for summary judgment in
April, 2013, regarding the threshold issue as to whether defendant
had misclassified plaintiffs as independent contractors. The
motions were denied by the District Court on November 13, 2013.

Plaintiffs were granted leave to file their second amended
complaint and the class was certified on August 20, 2015. A
supplemental scheduling order was entered on September 18, 2015,
which included a deadline of March 15, 2016, for motions to amend
the pleadings.

Defendant filed a motion for leave to amend its answer, to clarify
its affirmative defenses that are related to those already
asserted but that may fall under a different legal theory.
Defendant contends that the amendment will allow it to preserve
its defenses while putting plaintiffs on notice of the same.
Plaintiffs argue that defendant's newly proposed affirmative
defenses' assert unfounded legal positions that are futile as
responses to plaintiff's lawsuit.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Gale' memorandum and order dated May 4,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/hXxF8lfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Larry Blair, Charlie Davis and Elhajj M. Alston are
represented by:

     Athena M. Dickson, Esq.
     Eric W. Smith, Esq.
     Raymond A. Dake, Esq.
     Rik N. Siro, Esq.
     Siro Smith Dickson, PC
     1621 Baltimore Avenue
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Telephone: 816-471-4881

          - and -

     Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
     Michael F. Brady, Esq.
     Brady & Associates Law Office
     10985 Cody Street, Suite 135
     Overland Park, KS 66210
     Telephone: 913-696-0925
     Facsimile: 913-696-0468

          - and -

     Teresa A. Woody, Esq.
     654 Belleview Ave.
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Telephone: 816-931-5919

Teresa A. Woody, Esq. also represents other plaintiffs.

Nick Bryant, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

TransAm Trucking, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brenda G.
Hamilton -- bhamilton@sb-kc.com -- Frederick H. Riesmeyer, II --
friesmeyer@sb-kc.com -- Rachel H. Baker -- rbaker@sb-kc.com --
Shannon Cohorst Johnson -- sjohnson@sb-kc.com -- Sharon A. Coberly
-- at Seigfreid Bingham, PC


UNITED ONLINE: Faces "Akerman" Suit Over Proposed B. Riley Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Akerman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United Online, Inc., Howard G. Phanstiel, James T.
Armstrong, Robert Berglass, Kenneth L. Coleman, Kenneth Denman,
Andrew D. Miller, Carol A. Scott, B. Riley Financial, Inc., and
Unify Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 12321 (De. Ch., Ct., May 12,
2016), is brought on behalf of all public shareholders of United
Online, to enjoin the proposed merger of United Online with B.
Riley Financial, Inc. and Unify Merger Sub, Inc., through a flawed
process and inadequate consideration.

United Online, Inc. provides consumer services and products over
the Internet under various brands, including NetZero, Juno,
StayFriends, Trombi and MyPoints.

B. Riley Financial, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides
collaborative financial services and solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert D. Goldberg, Esq.
      BIGGS AND BATTAGLIA
      921 N Orange St.
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 655-9677
      E-mail: goldberg@batlaw.com

         - and -

      Aaron Brody, Esq.
      Michael Klein, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com
              mklein@ssbny.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Defend Against Sexual Assault by Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to dismiss in the case JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-04670-SI (N.D. Cal.)

Since 2010, Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) has operated as a
transportation network company. Individuals download Uber's
smartphone application and then use the "App" to make a
transportation request. Uber solicits and retains non-professional
drivers to provide the car rides that customers order through the
Uber App.  One who wishes to drive for Uber applies online and
uploads photos of a driver's license, vehicle registration, and
proof of insurance. Uber then performs a background check through
a third party company. The check runs the driver's social security
number through a database, capturing information dating back seven
years.

In February 2015, Doe 1 and her friends used the Uber App to
arrange a car ride after they had gone to dinner and then to a
party.  Uber driver Abderrahim Dakiri confirmed that he was on his
way, and picked up Doe 1 and her friends.  After Dakiri dropped
off Doe 1's friends first, Doe 1 gave Dakiri the address of her
destination.  Dakiri then began to sexually assault Doe 1. Dakiri
parked the car in a remote area and continued to sexually assault
Doe 1 until she was able to unlock the car door and run away.

In August 2015, in Charleston, South Carolina, Doe 2 and a group
of friends got a ride from Uber driver Patrick Aiello, after Doe
2's friend arranged the ride using Uber's App. On this incident
Aiello drove the car to a remote parking lot off a highway area
where he proceeded to viciously rape Doe 2 and threaten her with
harm multiple times. Doe 2 was able to get onto the highway,
crossed to the median, and then started running alongside the
highway away from the parking lot.  A car hit Doe 2's arm while
she was waving for help.  The car then stopped and called 911.
Police took Doe 2 to the hospital, where she became suicidal and
was transferred to a psychiatric unit for three days.

Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 brought a tort suit against Uber for
sexual assaults that plaintiffs allege they suffered at the hands
of Uber drivers.

Uber moved to dismiss the complaint on December 3, 2015. January
20, 2016, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint and brought six
claims for relief: (1) negligence and negligent hiring,
supervision, and retention; (2) fraud; (3) battery; (4) assault;
(5) false imprisonment; and (6) intentional infliction of
emotional distress.  Plaintiffs bring claims 3 through 6 against
Uber under a theory of respondeat superior. Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, damages including punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Uber moves to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Uber argues
that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief as to all
six of their claims. Uber asks that the court dismiss plaintiffs'
prayer for punitive damages. Uber also seeks to seal an exhibit
filed in support of its motion.

District Judge Illston granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss. The court granted Uber's motion to
dismiss the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim as
it relates to Dakiri, without prejudice, but denied the motion as
it relates to Aiello. The court denied the motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' fraud claim. The court denied Uber's motion to dismiss
claims brought under a respondeat superior theory and denies
Uber's motion to dismiss requests for punitive damages. The Court
also denied Uber's motion to seal Exhibit 5 to the Cohen
declaration.

A copy of Judge Illston's order dated May 4, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/DJLJzDfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas H Wigdor --
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com -- Jeanne M Christensen --
jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- Elizabeth J Chen --
echen@wigdorlaw.com -- Tanvir Haque Rahman --
trahman@wigdorlaw.com -- at Wigdor LLP; Jamie Cameron Couche --
jcouche@adplaw.com -- at Anderson and Poole, P.C.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Josh Alan Cohen
-- jcohen@clarencedyer.com -- at Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP


UNITED STATES: Judge Rules on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the Court of Federal Claims
granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions for
partial summary judgment in the case WILLIAM C. HARDY & BERTIE ANN
HARDY et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 14-
388L (Fed. Cl.)

On May 6, 2014, William C. Hardy, for himself and as
representative of a class of similarly situated individuals, filed
a complaint alleging a Fifth Amendment taking. Plaintiffs are 112
individuals who collectively own 173 parcels of land adjacent to a
railroad corridor in Newton County, Georgia. The land is situated
between milepost E 65.80, at the point of the railroad line
crossing Route 229 in Newborn, Georgia and milepost E 80.70, near
the intersection of Washington Street, SW, and Turner Lake Road,
SW, in Covington, Georgia, a distance of 14.9 miles.

Plaintiffs have amended their complaint twice. In the second
amended complaint, Mr. Hardy and the other 111 plaintiffs continue
to assert, as their sole claim for relief, a Fifth Amendment
taking. They assert that until 2013, defendant, the United States,
held easements for railroad purposes that crossed their land.
According to plaintiffs, defendant then authorized the conversion
of the railroad rights-of-way to recreational trails pursuant to
the National Trail Systems Act (Trails Act), conduct that resulted
in a taking that violated the Just Compensation Clause of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the
issue of liability with respect to 101 of their parcels. Defendant
cross-moves for partial summary judgment regarding the parcels of
land identified in plaintiffs' motion, and also with respect to
additional parcels that defendant identifies.

Judge Sweeney granted in part and denied in part the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties were directed to
file a joint status report by no later than Monday, May 23, 2016,
suggesting further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Sweeney's opinion and order dated May 4, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/jx1yDYfrom Leagle.com.
WILLIAM C. HARDY, BERTIE ANN HARDY, EMMA TRIMBLE and DOROTHY
SCHAEFFER Plaintiffs, represented by Elizabeth A. Gepford McCulley
-- mcculley@swm.legal -- at Stewart Wald & McCulley LLC

GLORIA J. JACKSON, Plaintiff, Pro Se

USA, Defendant, represented by Stephen Finn, U.S. Department of
Justice - ENRD


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Sued Over Defective Timing Belt Tensioning Systems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Volkswagen and Audi, which already face hundreds of suits over an
alleged scheme to falsify diesel emissions, have been hit with a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey accusing the automakers of concealing defective timing belt
tensioning systems in their vehicles.

The defect can cause vehicles to lose power at any time, placing
occupants at risk, according to the suit, filed in federal court
in Newark on May 16.

The suit claims that, based on pre-production testing, design
failure mode analysis and consumer complaints to dealers, the
defendants knew of the premature failure of the tensioning system
in class members' vehicles but fraudulently concealed them from
class members.  In addition, according to the suit, the defendants
knowingly omitted material facts about the defective tensioning
system and its corresponding safety risk, and misrepresented to
buyers the standard, quality or grade of class vehicles.

Owners whose vehicles suffered failure of the timing belt
tensioning system allegedly have had to pay thousands of dollars
to make repairs or to replace the entire engine.  The defendants
did not reimburse class members for failures that occurred outside
the vehicle's warranty periods, the plaintiffs claim.

The suit brings claims on behalf of a nationwide class of owners
or lessees of 2008 through 2013 Volkswagen and Audi vehicles with
2.0L TSI or 2.0L TFSI engines, and a subclass of New Jersey
residents who owned or leased such vehicles.  On behalf of the
nationwide class, the suit brings claims of breach of contract,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied
warranty, violation of the Moss-Magnuson Warranty Act and unjust
enrichment.  The suit also brings a claim for violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act on behalf of the subclass of New Jersey
owners.

The engine with the allegedly faulty timing chain tensioner was
sold in various Volkswagen Beetle, CC, EOS, Golf, GTI, Jetta,
Passat, Golf R32, Rabbit, Routan, Tiguan and Toureg and Audi A3,
A4, A5, A6, A7, TT, Q3, Q5 and Q7 models.

Volkswagen has faced other suits over timing chain tensioners in
the past, and it is also named in 763 suits that have been
consolidated in the Northern District of California by the
Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation over allegedly rigged
emissions systems on cars with diesel engines.

The named plaintiff in the timing chain tensioner case, David
Zimand of Englewood, leased a 2009 Volkswagen Jetta in April 2009,
and then purchased the car in 2012 when his lease ended.  In March
2014, the car experienced tensioning system failure, which
resulted in catastrophic failure of the engine, the suit says.  He
was forced to replace the camshaft, chain, chain tensioner, valves
and numerous other engine parts, which he paid for out of pocket,
and he was without a vehicle for two weeks, the complaint claims.

A mechanical expert retained by the plaintiff's counsel said the
defendants are replacing defective chain tensioners with
redesigned tensioners, the suit claims.

The suit was filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check in Radnor,
Pennsylvania, with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody &
Agnello of Roseland as local counsel.  Joseph Meltzer of Kessler
Topaz did not return a call about the suit.

Volkswagen spokesman John Schilling and Audi spokesman
Mark Clothier each said their companies do not comment on active
litigation.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Approval of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, 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
awaiting action on its request for preliminary court approval of
the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

On March 26, 2015, the Company acquired Deffenbaugh Disposal Inc.
("Deffenbaugh"). In May 2012 and December 2013, Deffenbaugh was
named as a defendant in purported class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas. These
cases pertained to fuel, environmental and base rate charges
included on invoices, generally alleging that such charges were
not properly disclosed, were unfair or were contrary to the
customer service contracts.

"We have agreed on settlement terms for both cases. We submitted a
request for preliminary court approval during the fourth quarter
of 2015 and are awaiting action on our request. The anticipated
settlements will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows," the Company said.


WILFRED AMERICAN: 2nd Cir. Remands "Salazar" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANA SALAZAR, MARILYN MERCADO, ANA BERNARDEZ,
JEANNETTE POOLE, LISA BRYANT, CHERRYLINE STEVENS, EDNA VILLATORO,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. JOHN B. KING, JR., in his official capacity as
Secretary of the United States Department of Education, Defendant-
Appellee, Docket No. 15-832-cv (2nd Cir.), the United States Court
of Appeals, Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the district
court dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and remanded the case
for further proceedings.

Ana Salazar, Marilyn Mercado, Ana Bernardez, Jeannette Poole, Lisa
Bryant, Cherryline Stevens, and Edna Villatoro brought the class
action against Arne Duncan, in his official capacity as the
Secretary of the United States Department of Education ("DOE").
The plaintiffs alleged that federal student loans were
fraudulently procured on their behalf when the Wilfred American
Educational Corporation's for-profit beauty schools falsely
certified that the plaintiffs had an ability-to-benefit ("ATB")
from the education they received from Wilfred.  The plaintiffs
alleged that the DOE's refusal to temporarily suspend collection
of the student loan debt of putative class members, and refusal to
send them notice of their potential eligibility for a discharge,
was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA").  The United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the DOE's motion to dismiss,
holding that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a final
agency action that may be subject to judicial review.  Because the
district court dismissed the complaint, it also denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.

As a preliminary matter, the DOE argued that the case has become
moot because all the named plaintiffs' Wilfred loans have now been
discharged.  The Second Circuit, however, held that the plaintiffs
are entitled to judicial review because there is sufficient law to
apply to the challenged agency decisions.

"The text of the relevant statute directs that the DOE "shall"
discharge a borrower's loan liability when a school has falsely
certified a student's ATB.  DOE's regulations and informal agency
guidance direct that the DOE "shall" temporarily suspend
collection on loans and notify borrowers of their possible
eligibility for a discharge when the DOE has reliable information
that a borrower "may be eligible" for dicharge," the appellate
court stated.

The Second Circuit therefore held that the plaintiffs' claims are
judicially reviewable under the APA.  Accordingly, the Second
Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded
the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision,
including consideration of the plaintiffs' class certification
motion.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 12, 2016  opinion is
available at https://is.gd/UL27GP from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Eileen Conner, Esq.
          Beth E. Goldman, Esq.
          Jane Greengold Stvens, Esq.
          Danielle Tarantolo, Esq.
          Jason Glick, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004

Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Christina S. Poscablo, Esq.
          Ellen London, Esq.
          Emily E. Daughtry, Esq.
          Preet Bharara, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
          86 Chambers Street / 3rd Floor
          New York City, NY 10007


XENCOR, INC: Paid Plaintiff's $950,000 Legal Award
--------------------------------------------------
Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has paid a
class action plaintiff's legal award of $950,000 net of insurance
proceeds of $187,500.

On March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned
DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of
the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of
action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and
Stockholder Consents.  In general, the complaint alleged that the
plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of
the Company during the recapitalization and certain related
transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of
approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as
invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period.

On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief
under Del. C. Section 205 (the 205 Petition) related to the
corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed
an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015. On July
9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the class
action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to file
the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class
action, which the Company has done.

On August 11, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for Leave to File
an Amended Counter-Claim, along with the proposed Amended Counter-
Claim and related documents. On October 5, the parties filed a
Stipulation of Partial Settlement and related documents disclosing
a settlement of the invalidity claims addressed in the complaint,
the counter-claim and the proposed amended counter-claim including
a request by plaintiff's counsel for reimbursement of legal fees
up to $950,000.

On October 7, 2015, Xencor filed the Amended Counter-Claim and
related documents. On December 14, 2015, the Court entered an
Order and Partial Final Judgment approving the settlement of the
invalidity claims, validating each corporate act challenged in the
complaint, dismissing with prejudice Count II of the complaint
(the invalidity claims) and granting plaintiff's counsel a fee
award.

"We have paid the plaintiff's legal award of $950,000 net of
insurance proceeds of $187,500 which has been reflected as a
charge in our 2015 operations. We continue to recognize legal
costs as incurred and any insurance proceeds when received," the
Company said.

Based on the nature of the remaining claim, the Company believes
that it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of  loss or a
range of potential loss related to the claim; accordingly, no
amount for any loss has been accrued at March 31, 2016.

Xencor is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering and developing engineered monoclonal antibodies to
treat severe and life-threatening diseases with unmet medical
needs.


* Activist Organization Ready to Fight SA Mining Companies
----------------------------------------------------------
BERNAMA-NNN-SABC repots that the South Gauteng High Court here has
handed down a landmark ruling which paves the way for more than
200,000 gold miners and their families to form part of a class
action to claim compensation from South African mining companies
for contracting silicosis.

Speaking on the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC)
Morning Live program on May 16, activist organization Treatment
Action Campaign (TAC) general secretary Anele Yawa said they were
currently not sure whether the mining companies would appeal the
ruling, go to trial or seek an out of court settlement.

He added: "Whatever the companies decide, we are ready for them.
Gone are the days when the poor are going to be victims of the
rich and powerful because they can't afford to take them to
court."

Silicosis is a debilitating disease from the silica that the
miners breathe in at the gold mines and exposure over a prolonged
time causes silicosis.

Mr. Yawa said mines had for a long time being allowed to get away
with murder.  "This historic case will force employers to adhere
to safety regulations," he added.


* Banks May Sue Federal Government Over New CFPB Consumer Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Lazarus, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that banks
keep saying over and over that arbitration proceedings, as opposed
to Blass-action lawsuits, are the best way for consumers to handle
disputes.

Yet faced with the prospect of no longer being able to deny
consumers the right to sue them, the banking industry is expected
to take the deliciously ironic step of suing the federal
government.

At issue is a proposed rule from the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau that would prohibit financial-services firms from placing
clauses in contracts stipulating that customers can only arbitrate
disagreements.  The clauses prevent customers from suing on an
individual basis or from joining class-action lawsuits.

"Signing up for a credit card or opening a bank account can often
mean signing away your right to take the company to court if
things go wrong," Richard Cordray, director of the federal agency,
said after the proposed rule was announced this month . He called
mandatory arbitration a "contract gotcha" that "denies groups of
consumers the right to seek justice and relief for wrongdoing."

Arbitration still could be required for individual grievances
under the rule, but that's not a very big deal because few
consumers file individual suits over small amounts.  The big deal
here is that financial firms no longer would be able to block
consumers from coming together in class-action lawsuits.

The bureau is now receiving public comment on the rule, which has
been in the works for months.  If finalized, it probably would
take effect next year.

The Republican head of the House Financial Services Committee has
scheduled a hearing for May 18 on whether the rule is in the
public's best interest.  Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), the
committee chairman, called the bureau's proposal "a big, wet kiss"
to trial lawyers.

The banking industry, for its part, has yet to declare that a
legal challenge is inevitable but is wasting no time in voicing
opposition to what it sees as an unnecessarily heavy regulatory
hand.

"Consumers will get less and pay more if the CFPB's proposal to
sideline arbitration and promote class actions is ultimately
adopted," Rob Nichols, head of the American Bankers Assn., said in
a statement.

Law firm Morrison Foerster, which advises banks on regulatory
matters, concluded in a note to clients that if the final rule is
similar to what's now on the table, "it seems likely that the
proposed rule will be challenged" in court.

Other law firms have reached a similar conclusion. "Now the main
event begins," said Alston & Bird after the proposed rule was
issued.

Morrison Foerster said banks would focus their challenge in part
on the ideas that "consumers have a choice as to whether they want
to enter into an arbitration agreement" and that "the procedures
in arbitration and judicial proceedings are very similar."

Here's the thing, though: Consumers don't and the procedures
aren't.

Christine Hines, legislative director for the National Assn. of
Consumer Advocates, said consumers have no real choice when every
service provider in an industry requires mandatory arbitration.

She also pointed out that in arbitration, it's the company, not
the consumer, who picks and pays for the arbitrator -- and the
vast majority of rulings favor businesses.

"Industry claims would be laughable if the issue wasn't so
serious," Hines told me.  "Bank customers will have meaningful
choice when they can choose how to resolve disputes after they
arise, not when arbitration is forced on them in the corporate
fine print."

She added: "It is supremely ironic that they want to sue an agency
for seeking to restore people's ability to exercise the same
right."

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has given its seal of approval to
arbitration clauses, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was
empowered by the financial reform law enacted in 2010 to study and
regulate their use by financial firms.  This includes banks,
credit card issuers, car-leasing companies and debt collectors.

The proposed rule wouldn't affect nonfinancial businesses that
also routinely use arbitration clauses, such as phone companies,
pay-TV providers and rental car firms.

A study by the bureau last year found that "very few consumers
ever bring -- or think about bringing -- individual actions
against their financial service providers either in court or in
arbitration."  It concluded that "class actions provide a more
effective means for consumers to challenge problematic practices
by these companies."

A separate study by the advocacy group Public Citizen in 2007
found that over a four-year period, arbitrators ruled in favor of
banks and credit card companies 94% of the time in disputes with
California consumers.

Banks and other critics of the proposed rule are correct when they
observe that some lawyers abuse the class-action system.

A 2014 settlement over the marketing of Duracell batteries, for
example, awarded lawyers in the case about $5.7 million, while the
more than 7 million class members were each eligible for awards of
just $6 to $12. In March, the Supreme Court declined to hear an
appeal of the settlement.

Still, abuse of the system doesn't mitigate that class actions
remain consumers' most powerful tool in addressing and curbing
unfair business practices.

If arbitration is such a preferable alternative to litigation, as
banks insist, there should be little difficulty persuading people
to make that choice.  But it should be a choice, not a done deal
foisted on consumers.

I put that to the American Bankers Assn., asking how the industry
would feel about allowing customers to decide for themselves the
manner in which a dispute will be resolved.

Nessa Feddis, the association's senior vice president for consumer
protection and payments, replied that this would be a nonstarter.
It's one system or the other, she said.

If class actions are permitted, Ms. Feddis said, "banks are
unlikely to retain arbitration as an option because of costs." She
said that "it's not economical" for banks to continue covering
arbitration fees if class actions are also part of the picture.

Thus, in another ironic twist, the industry appears ready to spend
millions of dollars pursuing legal action aimed at keeping its
legal costs down.


* Corporate Defendants Rethink Class Action Litigation Strategies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers for
companies trying to fend off costly class action lawsuits are
rethinking longstanding legal strategies after businesses lost two
key U.S. Supreme Court cases as well as their staunchest supporter
on the bench.

At the start of the court's term in October, the business
community had reason to believe the justices would further pare
back class action litigation after rulings spearheaded by
conservative Justice Antonin Scalia favoring corporate defendants
in prior years.  But the term has defied expectations.

The justices ruled against businesses in two of the three class
action cases they considered, with the sole case won by a
corporate defendant coming in a narrow decision favoring online
people-search company Spokeo Inc. on May 16.

And Scalia died in February, depriving companies of their most
vigorous ally on the court in such cases.

Lawyers representing employees and consumers now see the chance of
a legal counterattack aimed at expanding the type of class action
cases that courts will allow, with the possibility that the
conservative Scalia will be replaced by a more liberal appointee.

Without Scalia, "it's statistically harder to get the votes you
need" on the Supreme Court, said Warren Postman, a lawyer with the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce's litigation arm.  Lawyers for
corporations will be "waiting to see how the court shapes up based
on the next appointee," Mr. Postman added.

Scalia's seat may remain vacant well into 2017.

The Republican-led Senate has refused to act on Democratic
President Barack Obama's nomination of centrist appellate judge
Merrick Garland to replace Scalia.  If Democratic front-runner
Hillary Clinton wins the Nov. 8 presidential election and gets to
replace Scalia, she may choose a more liberal nominee.

Scalia was a key voice for the court's conservative wing in
curbing class action litigation, including victories for Wal-Mart
in 2011 and Comcast Corp in 2013.

There are signs that the uncertainty about Scalia's replacement
and how long the court will be shorthanded is affecting companies'
decisions on whether they will seek Supreme Court review of cases
they lose in lower courts.

DRI, a group that files friend-of-the-court briefs supporting
companies in such cases, has received fewer requests for help
since Scalia's death, indicating businesses are thinking twice
before asking the high court to get involved, said William Jay, a
lawyer in private practice who works with the group.

Since Scalia's death, the court has declined to hear a series of
class action appeals brought by companies.

Plaintiffs' lawyers hope there will be a liberal majority on the
court, currently split with four liberals and four conservatives,
that would roll back recent pro-business rulings.

"If Scalia is replaced by a justice who is far more progressive,
there are some reasons to hope the court will revisit some of the
extremely anti-consumer cases it has decided in recent years,"
said Paul Bland, executive director of consumer advocacy group
Public Justice.

Scalia's death did not affect the outcome of the three recent
cases, which all had six justices in the majority. Scalia's vote
may have affected the court's decisions on whether to hear such
cases, with only four votes needed for the justices to consider an
appeal.

In the three class action cases decided this term, the court ruled
against food producer Tyson Food Inc in March and advertising firm
Campbell Ewald in January before the Spokeo decision.

All three cases were "designed to further an anti-class-action
agenda" but largely failed to achieve that goal, said Deepak
Gupta, a lawyer who represents plaintiffs.


* South African Gold Mining Industry Face $3.4BB Silicosis Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McKay, writing for Miningmx, reports that South Africa's
gold mining industry could face up to $3.4bn in liabilities
relating to a class action issued on behalf of mineworkers
suffering from tuberculosis and silicosis.

Commenting on the class action, which was certified by the High
Court in Johannesburg on May 13, Investec Securities said its
assumptions were ". . . a worse case scenario".

The High Court certification paves the way for tens of thousands
of mineworkers and former mineworkers suffering from silicosis and
tuberculosis (TB) to sue the mining companies for damages, said
BDLive earlier this month.

"After examining legal prescripts, we reached a conclusion that
there are sufficient issues to certify a class action where there
would be two classes: the silicosis class; and the TB class," the
deputy judge president of the High Court in Johannesburg, Phineas
Mojapelo, said in court.

Press reports put the number of claimants that could join the
class action as between 100,000 and 500,000 and would include the
families of now deceased miners as claims could reach back as far
as 1965.

The class action is against 32 gold mining companies, including
AngloGold Ashanti, Sibanye Gold, Harmony Gold and Anglo American.

"While we think this will take a long time to conclude, we note
that should the class action succeed and if the damages are
awarded are similar to those in previous cases, it could have a
significant financial impact on the South African gold mining
industry," said Nkateko Mathonsi and Andrew Snowdowne, Investec
Securities analysts.

Investec said the outcomes of such cases were "unpredictable", but
it added that the liability may materialise if "the line of
reasoning" was adopted earlier this year in which Anglo American
and AngloGold Ashanti agreed to a $30m settlement with 4,388
miners affected by silicosis.

In that settlement, Anglo American and AngloGold Ashanti agreed to
pay R464m or $30m equal to an average of R106,000 per claimant.
Investec worked on a settlement of R100,000 each for the class
action claim.

"Should this class action succeed it might encourage other health
and environmental related class actions against the South African
mining industry which could severely harm its interests," said the
Investec analysts.

"We expect, therefore, that the industry will defend this action
robustly," they added.

Gold mining companies Harmony Gold, Sibanye Gold and Gold Fields
have said that owing to the developing nature of the issue they
were unable to quantify the possible liability.

AngloGold Ashanti has said, however, that were a judgment to go
against it in the event of a major class action ". . . such
matters would have an adverse effect on its financial position,
which could be material."


* U.S. Supreme Court & NLRB Arbitration, Waiver Clauses Clash
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert K. Neiman, Esq. -- rneiman@muchshelist.com -- of Much
Shelist, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports
that although the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that the Federal Arbitration Act allows employers and others to
include and enforce arbitration and class action waiver clauses in
contracts, the National Labor Relations Board keeps ruling that
such clauses in employment agreements are unenforceable and
constitute an unfair labor practice.

So what's an employer supposed to do?

In previous bulletins, we have described how the U.S. Supreme
Court has consistently enforced arbitration and class action
waiver clauses in employment agreements and other commercial
contracts.  These clauses help employers avoid wage and hour and
overtime class actions brought, for example, by a single
disgruntled employee as the class representative.  Instead, such
claims must be arbitrated by each individual employee, helping to
eliminate an employer's risk of huge jury verdicts and facing wage
and hour class actions in court.

Yet employers continue to read about NLRB decisions finding that
arbitration agreements and class action waivers are illegal and
unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act.  Employees
who oppose their employer's motion to compel arbitration have
filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB, alleging that
requiring employees to arbitrate constitutes an unfair labor
practice, because such a requirement precludes employees from
filing joint, class, or collective claims in court to address
disputes regarding wages, hours, and other working conditions.

A common misconception is that the NLRB has jurisdiction only over
employers with unionized workforces.  But the NLRB's jurisdiction
also extends to non-unionized workplaces, because the NLRB has
jurisdiction to protect "concerted activity" in any workplace.

The conflict between the U.S. Supreme Court and the NLRB on
arbitration and class action waiver clauses stems from the fact
that no NLRB decisions finding such clauses unenforceable have yet
made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Rather, the U.S.
Supreme Court's decisions upholding such clauses were appeals of
lower-court decisions.  Until an NLRB ruling finding that such
arbitration and class action waiver clauses violate the NLRA is
challenged in court, the NLRB seems intent on simply ignoring U.S.
Supreme Court precedent.

While waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this conflict
between its own decisions and those of the NLRB, employers who
have already included arbitration and class action waiver clauses
in their employment agreements or elsewhere should still consider
seeking to compel arbitration and dismiss class actions.  The
benefits of arbitration and class action waivers are great, and
relatively few employees bring unfair labor practice charges to
the NLRB under such circumstances.  For the same reason, employers
considering including arbitration and class action waiver clauses
in their employment agreements or elsewhere should still consider
doing so.

If an employee or group of employees challenges the enforceability
of an arbitration and class action waiver clause, an employer has
two options: the employer can either agree to refrain from
enforcing such clauses, thus preventing the employee or group of
employees from pursuing an unfair labor practice charge with the
NLRB, or it can seek a court order compelling arbitration and, if
applicable, barring a class action and asking the court to rule
that the clauses do not violate the NLRA, thereby potentially pre-
empting the employees from filing an unfair labor practice charge
with the NLRB.

Again, relatively few employees have bothered to seek from the
NLRB relief from arbitration and class action waiver clauses.  All
lower courts must follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent and enforce
arbitration and class action waiver clauses.  Employers who
already have adopted or who are considering adopting arbitration
and class action waiver clauses are therefore likely to be
successful in obtaining a court order compelling arbitration and
barring any class actions, thereby reaping the benefits of such
clauses.

The upside of adopting and enforcing arbitration and class action
waiver clauses in employee agreements outweighs the downside, but
taking such a stance is not without risk.  Employers should
therefore consider these rewards and risks until the U.S. Supreme
Court finally resolves the issue.


                            *********

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  * * *