CAR_Public/160530.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 30, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 107



                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: Nov. 2016 Class Cert. Hearing in "St. John" Action
3M COMPANY: "Chandler" Class Action in Alabama Stayed
3M COMPANY: "Stover" Class Action in Alabama Stayed
3M COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Water Authority Class Action Pending
3M COMPANY: Defendant in 260 Suits Related to Bair Hugger

AEGON USA: Plaintiffs File Appeal in "Weaver" Class Suit
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Against "Kelley" Suit
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Expects 3 Class Actions to be Consolidated
ANTHEM INSURANCE: Late Claimant Can't Join "Lees" Settlement
APOLLO EDUCATION: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Action

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Rejects Syngenta 3rd Party Claims
ASSET CAMPUS: Andy Jang Appeals Denial of Class Certification
ASSURANT INC: Defending Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
BAKER HUGHES: Subclasses in "Williams" Conditionally Certified
BANKERS LIFE: Plaintiffs File Appeal in "David" Class Suit

BANKERS LIFE: "David" Suit Plaintiffs File Appeal in 9th Circuit
BRANSON'S NANTUCKET: Class Certification Sought in "Estep" Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final OK
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Zamir" Case Pending
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Appeals District Court Ruling in "Taha" Suit

CARMIKE CINEMAS: Shareholder Litigation Filed in Georgia
CARSON SMITHFIELD: Class Certification Sought in "Schmitz" Suit
CASHCALL INC: Status Conference Set for June 2 in "Kemply" Suit
CELGENE CORP: Discovery in IUB and Providence Cases Underway
CELGENE CORP: Briefing on Atty. Fees to be Completed by June 29

CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Contract Binds Constructor to Surcharges
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Wins More Time to Answer in "Hampton" Suit
CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in NYPL Suit
CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in "Allen" Case
CITIGROUP INC: Court Rejects Bid to Dismiss ISDAFIX-Related Case

CITIGROUP INC: Faces Suit Over Oceanografia Fraud
CMRE FINANCIAL: Lisa Edgren Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Continuing in Shareholder Suit
CONSUMER LAW: Settlement Agreement in "Guzman" Has Final OK
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Affirms Contempt Ruling

COTY INC: Wins Dismissal of Securities Complaint
CVS HEALTH: Settlement Reached in "Lauriello" Action
CVS HEALTH: North Jackson Pharmacy's Class Cert. Bid Pending
CVS HEALTH: Omnicare's Motion to Dismiss Pending
CVS HEALTH: $48-Mil. Deal in "Medoff" Action Wins Final Court OK

CVS HEALTH: Discovery Proceeding in "Corcoran" & "Podgorny" Suits
CVS HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Sheet Metal Workers' Action
CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of ERISA Class Action Sought
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeal Filed in "Kincaid" Class Suit
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Maloney Seeks Certification of Class

EL PASO, TX: "Lutrell" Class Suit Plaintiffs File Appeal
EQUIFAX INC: Judge Grants Reporting Agencies' Bid to Dismiss Suit
FARMERS INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Affirms Rejection of Expert Fees
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Update in Hearing Loss Litigation in Illinois
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Update on Hearing Loss Litigation in Pennsylvania

FEDERAL SIGNAL: Update on Hearing Loss Litigation in New York
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Update on Hearing Loss Litigation in New Jersey
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Texas Securities Class Suit Awaits Discovery
FREDDIE MAC: FHFA Seeks Transfer of Jacobs and Hindes Suit
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Made Cash Settlement Payment of $31,616,000

GALLIANO MARINE: Appeal Filed in "Halle" FLSA Class Suit
GILA RIVER INDIAN: No Quick Ruling on Bid to Intervene
GLOBAL FITNESS: 6th Cir. Upholds Settlement Approval
GOOGLE INC: Calif. Judge Trims Free Range Content Suit
HARRIS CTY, TX: Certification of Class Sought in "ODonnell" Suit

HENRY SCHEIN: Defending Class Suits Over Dental Supplies
HSBC BANK: Donald Weschsler Filed Appeal in Second Circuit
HSBC FINANCE: "Monteleone" Class Action Filed in N.D. Ill.
HSBC USA: Settlement in Overdraft Suit Awaits Final OK
HSBC USA: Settlement in CDS Antitrust Case Has Final OK

HSBC USA: Interest Rate Swaps Litigation in Early Stage
HSBC USA: Motion to Dismiss Gold Fix Litigation Pending
HSBC USA: Motion to Dismiss Silver Fix Litigation Pending
HSBC USA: 2 Silver Fix Cases Filed in Canada
HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Benchmark Rate Litigation Denied

ILLINOIS: Settlement in Case Over Mentally Ill Inmates Approved
INVENTURE FOODS: Facing Westmoreland County Suit in Arizona
JCJ VENTURES: Ventrone Seeks of Certification of FLSA Class
JP MORGAN: Appeal Filed in 2nd Circuit in "Stikas" Class Suit
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal Filed in "Flores" Class Suit

KRIEGER KIDDIE: Wins Initial Approval of "Mello" Class Settlement
LAOS: U.S. Judge Threatens to Dismiss Suit Over Wrongful Death
LIVE NATION: Appeals Related to Ticketing Fees Action Dismissed
LOUISIANA CRANE: Bid for Expedited Notice Filed in "Salazar" Suit
MARCOAH GROUP: Certification of Class Sought in Byer Clinic Suit

MARRONE BIO: Aug. 25 Settlement Hearing Set
MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL: Class Status Denied in "Johnson" Suit
MCKENZIE CHECK: Fla. Appeals Court Reversed "Betts" Ruling
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Action Ongoing
MYLAN N.V.: Motion to Dismiss Providence Suit Fully Briefed

MYLAN N.V.: Dropped as Defendant in Amended Suit Over Minocycline
MYLAN N.V.: Bid to Dismiss Pioglitazone Buyers' Suit Pending
MYLAN N.V.: Briefing on Shareholders Class Action Now Complete
MYLAN N.V.: Facing 7 Doxycycline Complaints in Pennsylvania
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Merger Class Suit Remains Pending in Delaware

NASDAQ OMX: Appeal Filed in "Rabin" Securities Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: College Football Players File 6 Class Suits
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Impending Dismissal Also Requires Notice
NEC TOKIN: Settles Capacitors Antitrust Suit for $37.25-Mil.
NEW YORK: Faces "Levin" Suit Over Water Contamination

NORTHLAND GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Lisiecki" Suit
OCWEN LOAN: Abraham, Coves May Amend Portion of Complaint
OHIO: Schools Neglect Hispanic Students, Class Action Says
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Appeals Court Issues Writ of Mandate
OREGON, USA: Appeal Filed in Suit Over Wrongful Conduct vs. Gov.

REAL TIME: Initial Approval of "Tannlund" Suit Settlement Sought
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Circle Click and CTNY File Appeal in 9th Cir.
RAYONIER ADVANCED: M.D. Fla. Court Tossed Stockholder Complaint
RUCKUS WIRELESS: Defending Merger Class Action in Calif.
SEAWORLD: San Diego Judge Drops "Hall" Class Suit

SOCIAL SECURITY: Plaintiffs in "Heard" Class Suit Filed Appeal
SOLARCITY CORP: Cal. Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Bid
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Zachariah Pinkney Moves for Class Certification
SPEEDWAY LLC: Judge Dismisses "Timoneri" ADA Suit
ST. LOUIS RAMS: Files Appeal in 8th Cir. in Suit vs. Pudlowski

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Petition for Special Action Fully Briefed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Dispositive Motion Briefing Due August 2016
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Ruling in "Burnell" Suit Under Appeal
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Rudsell" Suit in Calif. Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Complaint in Calif. Stayed

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Complaint in Calif. Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "McKinsty" Complaint in Calif. Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Nilsen" Complaint in Calif. Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Evaluating Options in "Fritsch" Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal "Julian" Overtime Claims

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Action in Washington in Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Suit in Washington in Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Transfer of Indiana Case to Utah
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Discovery Underway in Utah Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Discovery Yet in Physical Testing Case

TARGET CORPORATION: Judge Dismissed Job Applicant's Complaint
TENNESSEE: Injunction Ruling Affirmed in "Wilson" Medicaid Suit
TOWER GROUP: Dvores Filed Appeal From Ruling in "Wilson" Suit
TOWN SPORTS: Class Settlement Remains Subject to Court OK
TRIDENT MANAGEMENT: Sending of 2 Notices Does Not Violate FDCPA

UBER TECH: Faces Class Suit by Lyft Drivers
UEBT RETIREE: Final Approval of "Barling" Suit Settlement Sought
UNITED COLLECTION: Ramona Stefanovic Seeks Certification of Class
UNITED RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Vytlacil" Suit
UNITED STATES: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Suit v. Education Department

USA TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From E.D. Pa. Ruling Filed in 3rd Cir.
VANGUARD NATURAL: Dismissal of Eagle Rock Merger Case Sought
VANGUARD NATURAL: Facing "Maniatis" Suit Over Debt Exchange
VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Maranda Woodward Seeks Certification of Class
VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Litigation Ongoing

VERISK ANALYTICS: "DiSalvo" Case Stayed Pending Spokeo Ruling
VERISK ANALYTICS: Interthinx Litigation Remains Pending
VERISK ANALYTICS: "Snyder" Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal
VERISK ANALYTICS: "Halloran" Plaintiffs Directed to Amend Suit
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Filed Reply Brief in Appeal

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Pending
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Motion to Dismiss "Youngers" Case Pending
VIVUS INC: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Action Granted
WALTER INVESTMENT: June 10 Hearing on Request to Notify Members
WALTER INVESTMENT: Hearing Held on Final Settlement Approval

WELLS FARGO: "Bias" RICO Class Action Pending
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Certification of Class Sought in "Neldner" Suit
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Wendie Vogelman Seeks Certification of Class
WERNER ENTERPRISES: $2MM Liability Over Short Break Matter
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Meal and Rest Breaks Suit Still Pending

WESTERN UNION: Defending "Tennille" and "Smet" Actions in Colo.
WESTERN UNION: Final Approval of "Douglas" Action Pending
WESTERN UNION: "Pincus" Action Pending in S.D. Fla.
WILLBROS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Restatement Suit Remains Pending
XEROX BUSINESS: "Douglas" Suit Plaintiffs File Appeal to 9th Cir.


                            *********


3M COMPANY: Nov. 2016 Class Cert. Hearing in "St. John" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that a hearing on class certification is
scheduled for November 2016, in a lawsuit by a former employee.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John"
case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs
suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property
damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the
Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in
2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's
personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of
Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City
of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities
Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur
Utilities.

In September 2015, the court issued a scheduling order staying
discovery pending mediation which occurred in January 2016, but
did not resolve the case and the parties continue their
negotiations. A hearing on class certification is scheduled for
November 2016.


3M COMPANY: "Chandler" Class Action in Alabama Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the "Chandler" class action lawsuit
remains stayed.

In 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit
filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking
unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged
damage to their property from emissions of certain
perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds
(the "Chandler" case) granted the Company's motion to abate the
case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution
of class certification issues in the St. John case. Despite the
stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for
alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the
named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further
action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is
lifted.


3M COMPANY: "Stover" Class Action in Alabama Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the "Stover" class action lawsuit
remains stayed.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County (the "Stover" case) seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur
utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment
sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly
contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the
State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred
from Franklin County to Morgan County.

In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters,
the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on
hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in
the St. John case.


3M COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Water Authority Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the
Water Authority class action is pending.

In October 2015, West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority
("Water Authority") filed an individual complaint against 3M
Company, Dyneon, L.L.C, and Daikin America, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint
also includes representative plaintiffs who brought the complaint
on behalf of themselves, and a class of all owners and possessors
of property who use water provided by the Water Authority and five
local water works to which the Water Authority supplies water
(collectively, the "Water Utilities"). The complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief based on
allegations that the defendants' chemicals, including PFOA and
PFOS from their manufacturing processes in Decatur, have
contaminated the water in the Tennessee River at the water intake,
and that the chemicals cannot be removed by the water treatment
processes utilized by the Water Authority. 3M has moved to dismiss
the case on legal grounds. That motion is pending.


3M COMPANY: Defendant in 260 Suits Related to Bair Hugger
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016, the Company is a
named defendant in approximately 260 lawsuits, most of which are
pending in federal or state court in Minnesota, in which the
plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient
warming system. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted the plaintiffs' motion to transfer and
consolidate all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a
multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial phase of the
litigation.

The Bair Hugger(TM) product line was acquired by 3M as part of the
2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a manufacturer of patient
warming solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and maintain
normal body temperature in surgical settings. No liability has
been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that
any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time.


AEGON USA: Plaintiffs File Appeal in "Weaver" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Becky A. Weaver and Rodney Weaver filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the purported class action lawsuit
styled Becky Weaver v. Aegon USA, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03436-RBH,
in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina at Florence.

The lawsuit is brought over insurance-related issues.

The appellate case is titled Becky Weaver v. Aegon USA, LLC, Case
No. 16-1576, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Susan Campbell, Esq.
          Anna Scott Magann, Esq.
          MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC
          304 Church Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 833-8082

               - and -

          Tony Gould, Esq.
          BROWN & GOULD, PLLC
          136 NW 10th Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Telephone: (405) 235-4500

               - and -

          Patrick E. Knie, Esq.
          KNIE LAW FIRM
          P. O. Box 5159
          Spartanburg, SC 29304
          Telephone: (864) 582-5118

Defendants-Appellees Aegon USA, LLC, and Transamerica Life
Insurance Company are represented by:

          Michael S. Cashman, Esq.
          Brent Overton Edgar Clinkscale, Esq.
          WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC
          P. O. Box 10208
          Greenville, SC 29603-0208
          Telephone: (864) 255-5430
          E-mail: mcashman@wcsr.com
                  bclinkscale@wcsr.com


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Against "Kelley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative
securities class action lawsuit captioned Kelley et al. v. Aerie
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03007, was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
April 29, 2015. An amended complaint was filed on September 28,
2015 on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between June 25, 2014 and April 23, 2015. The amended
complaint asserts claims under the Exchange Act and alleges that
the defendants made materially false and misleading statements or
omitted allegedly material information during that period related
to, among other things, the prospects of the Company's initial
Phase 3 registration trial of RhopressaTM, named "Rocket 1," and
RhopressaTM.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the action are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, and
the Company expects to incur costs associated with defending the
action. In addition, the Company has various insurance policies
related to the risks associated with its business, including
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. However,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense of the action, and there is no assurance that the
Company's insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured
retention, will be sufficient or that its insurance carriers will
cover all claims or litigation costs. At this time, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Due
to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
reasonably predict the timing or outcomes, or estimate the amount
of loss, or range of loss, if any, or their effect, if any, on the
Company's financial statements.

Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Aerie"), with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries Aerie Pharmaceuticals Limited and Aerie
Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited ("Aerie Limited" and "Aerie
Ireland Limited", respectively, together with Aerie, the
"Company"), is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused on
the discovery, development and commercialization of small molecule
products to treat patients with glaucoma and other diseases of the
eye. The Company has its principal executive offices in Irvine,
California and operates as one business segment.


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Expects 3 Class Actions to be Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
anticipates three securities class action lawsuits will be
consolidated.

Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action
lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company,
its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the
actions, its Chief Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company
related to the regulatory approval path for migalastat.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages for purchasers of the
Company's common stock during different periods, all of which fall
between March 19, 2015 and October 1, 2015. It is possible that
additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from
stockholders, with respect to similar matters and also naming the
Company and/or its officers and directors as defendants.  The
Company anticipates that these lawsuits will be consolidated into
a single action.

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on the discovery and development- of advanced therapies to treat a
range of devastating rare and orphan diseases.


ANTHEM INSURANCE: Late Claimant Can't Join "Lees" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh of the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, denied claimant's motion for inclusion
in the settlement reached in the case RONALD LEES, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM
INSURANCE COMPANIES INC., d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD,
Defendant, No. 4:13CV1411 SNLJ (E.D Mo.)

A hearing was held on April 9, 2015, regarding the fairness of the
settlement reached by the parties.  The deal was eventually
approved by the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e)(2). The class members were limited to the 830,593 specific
cellular telephone numbers that were called by defendant or its
agent. Class members were able to submit claim forms through a
settlement website containing additional information regarding the
litigation and settlement. An issue arose regarding late-filed
claims forms, and the court determined that all forms postmarked
or received electronically through the claims website no later
than January 18, 2015 were valid.

On April 18, 2016, more than a year after the deadline for claims
submission had passed, the court received a document from Robert
Troise which that stated that he is a class member, that he had
called the phone numbers given by the court and also faxed the
claims administrator to no avail. The clerk's office responded
that claims forms were required to have been submitted by January
11, 2015, and that the case had been closed on June 16, 2015, so
his matter would not be addressed because it was untimely.

Mr. Troise responded, writing on the letter sent by the clerk,
that he was told to write to the court on a motion on the case.

A copy of Judge Limbaugh's memorandum and order dated May 13,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/VYhPNmfrom Leagle.com.

Ronald Lees, on behalf of Himself and other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burke --
ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- at BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC; David M.
Marco -- Larry P. Smith -- at SMITH MARCO, P.C.

Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue
Cross Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Christine E.
Czuprynski -- cczuprynski@reedsmith.com -- Dan J. Hofmeister --
dhofmeister@reedsmith.com -- David Z. Smith -- James A. Rolfes --
jrolfes@reedsmith.com -- Thomas M. Levinson -- at REED SMITH LLP

Glenn Kassiotis, Objector, represented by John W. Davis -- at LAW
OFFICE OF JOHN W. DAVIS

Anthony R. Brookman, Objector, Pro Se


APOLLO EDUCATION: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education 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 Company on May
1, 2016, reached an agreement with plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of the consolidated action.

On March 25, 2016, plaintiff Mara Simkhovich, a Company
shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, on behalf
of a class of Company shareholders, captioned Simkhovich v. Apollo
Education Group, Inc., Case No. CV2016-002339, (the "Simkhovich
Action"), challenging the merger and naming as defendants: (i) the
Company; (ii) Parent; (iii) Apollo Global Management, LLC; (iv)
The Vistria Group, LP; (v) Najafi Companies, LLC; (vi) Apollo
Investment Fund VIII, L.P.; (vii) Barclays Capital Inc.; and
(viii) the Company's board of directors.

On March 28, 2016, plaintiff John F. Miglio filed an amended
complaint, which added as defendants (i) the Apollo Class B Voting
Stock Trust No. 1; and (ii) Evercore Group L.L.C., (collectively,
together with the Company, Parent, Apollo Global Management, The
Vistria Group, LLC, Najafi Companies, Apollo Investment Fund VIII,
L.P., Barclays Capital Inc. and the Company's board of directors,
the "Defendants").

Additionally, three other actions were filed and subsequently
dismissed in: Miglio v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., Case No.
CV2016-051829; Blanchfield v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., Case
No. CV2016-0011738; and Simkhovich v. Apollo Education Group,
Inc., CV2016-003939.

On April 12, 2016, the Superior Court of the State of Arizona,
Maricopa County consolidated the Simkhovich Action, and four other
cases previously described in the Definitive Proxy Statement the
Company filed on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 23, 2016 (Miglio v. Apollo Education Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. CV2016-003718, Ladouceur v. Apollo
Education Group, Inc., et al. Case No. CV 2016-002148, Wagner v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al. Case No. CV 2016-001905 and
Casey v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV2016-
051605) into a consolidated action captioned In re Apollo
Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No.
CV2016-001905 (the "Consolidated Action"). The Superior Court of
the State of Arizona, Maricopa County also appointed Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP and Berman DeValerio as Lead Counsel; designated
DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacey, P.C. and Bonnett Fairbourn
Friedman & Balint, P.C. as Liaison Counsel; and designated Brodsky
& Smith, LLC, Wolf Popper LLP, Levi & Korinsky LLP and Profy
Promisloff & Ciarlanto, P.C. as plaintiffs' "Executive Committee."


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Rejects Syngenta 3rd Party Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has
dismissed Syngenta's third-party claims against the Company and
other grain companies.

The Company is a party to numerous lawsuits pending in various
U.S. state and federal courts arising out of Syngenta
Corporation's (Syngenta) marketing and distribution of genetically
modified corn products, Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure Duracade, in
the U.S. First, the Company brought a state court action in
Louisiana against Syngenta in 2014, alleging that Syngenta was
negligent in commercializing its products before the products were
approved in certain non-U.S. markets. Second, the Company is a
putative class member in a number of purported class actions filed
beginning in 2013 by farmers and other parties against Syngenta in
federal courts and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in federal court in Kansas
City, Missouri, again alleging that Syngenta was negligent in
commercializing its products.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, Syngenta filed third-party claims
against the Company and other grain companies seeking contribution
in the event that Syngenta is held liable in these lawsuits; the
courts dismissed these third-party claims on April 4, 2016.

Third, the Company has been named as a defendant in more than 200
suits filed by farmers and other parties in state and federal
court in Illinois beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015,
alleging that the Company and other grain companies were negligent
in failing to screen for genetically modified corn.

The Company denies liability in all of the actions in which it has
been named as a third-party defendant or defendant. All of these
actions are in pretrial proceedings, and it is premature at this
time to estimate a range of potential liability.


ASSET CAMPUS: Andy Jang Appeals Denial of Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Jang appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit from an order denying his motion for certification, and a
motion for reconsideration thereof, in the lawsuit styled Andy
Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01927-BRO-PJW
(C.D. Cal.).

The original proceeding arises out of the Petitioner's putative
class action seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief
from his former landlord for multiple violations of California's
principal landlord-tenant law.

The Petitioner contends he seeks the interlocutory relief under
Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because denial
of certification effectively terminates this action for purposes
of the relief he seeks, the practices alleged will not only be
left uncorrected but to continue unabated, and because it appears
the trial court may be wrong.

The questions presented are:

   (1) Does Petitioner have standing to assert claims based on
       rights established by Section 1950.5 to an accounting of
       monies paid as security, documentation of charges made
       against that security, and return of the balance of the
       security even though Petitioner is no longer a current
       tenant of defendant-respondent?

   (2) Was the district court correct in that asserting monetary
       damages was a remedy sought by the Fed. R. Civ. P.
       23(b)(2) classes?

   (3) Does the California Supreme Court's decision in Granberry
       v. Islay Investments, 9 Cal. 4th 738 (1995), that
       defendant-landlords may assert individual offset defenses
       against members of a class of plaintiff-tenants operate as
       a bar to finding sufficient commonality and/or superiority
       necessary to certify a class of plaintiff-tenants under
       Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)?

The appellate case is titled Andy Jang, Plaintiff-Petitioner
v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc., Defendant-Respondent, Case No.
16-80066, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Petitioner is represented by:

          Michael A. Leone, Esq.
          Jacob T. Spaid, Esq.
          SELTZER CAPLAN McMAHON VITEK
          750 B Street, Suite 2100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 685-3003
          Facsimile: (619) 685-3100
          E-mail: leone@scmv.com
                  spaid@scmv.com

               - and -

          Ron Bochner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RON BOCHNER
          232 E. Anapamu Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 979-3007
          Facsimile: (805) 979-3007
          E-mail: robolawoak@yahoo.com

The Defendant-Respondent is represented by:

          Karl P. Schlecht, Esq.
          Eli A. Gordon, Esq.
          KIMBALL TIREY AND ST. JOHN LLP
          2040 Main Street, Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (800) 564-6611
          Facsimile: (800) 453-1125
          E-mail: karl.schlecht@kts-law.com
                  eli.gordon@kts-law.com

               - and -

          Erik S. Velie, Esq.
          VICTOR LAW GROUP, LLP
          29109 Bentley Way
          Canyon Country, CA 91387
          Telephone: (213) 422-5061
          Facsimile: (855) 640-7962
          E-mail: erikvelie@victorylawllp.com


ASSURANT INC: Defending Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is a
defendant in class actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding
its lender-placed insurance programs. These cases assert a variety
of claims under a number of legal theories. The plaintiffs seek
premium refunds and other relief. The Company continues to defend
itself vigorously in these class actions.

"We have participated and may participate in settlements on terms
that we consider reasonable given the strength of our defenses and
other factors," the Company said.

Assurant, Inc. is a holding company whose subsidiaries globally
provide risk management solutions, protecting where consumers live
and the goods they buy.


BAKER HUGHES: Subclasses in "Williams" Conditionally Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated 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
conditionally certified certain subclasses of employees for
collective action treatment in the "Williams" class action.

On April 30, 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit alleging
that we failed to pay a nationwide class of workers overtime in
compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Dakota law
was filed titled Williams et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield
Operations, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
North Dakota.  On February 8, 2016, the Court conditionally
certified certain subclasses of employees for collective action
treatment.

"We are evaluating the background facts and at this time cannot
predict the outcome of this lawsuit and are not able to reasonably
estimate the potential impact, if any, such outcome would have on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.


BANKERS LIFE: Plaintiffs File Appeal in "David" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christine David and Rodney Clure, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Christine David, et al.
v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-00766-RSL,
in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, Seattle.

The plaintiffs assert that Bankers agents are employees, entitled
to overtime pay pursuant to the Washington Minimum Wage Act.
Prior to removal to the District Court, the state court certified
a class defined as: "All individuals who worked as agents for
Bankers Life and Casualty Company in the State of Washington at
any time between June 16, 2008 and December 2, 2013 and who were
classified as independent contractors."

The appellate case is titled Christine David, et al. v. Bankers
Life and Casualty Company, Case No. 16-35427, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Adam Jared Berger, Esq.
          Martin Stanley Garfinkel, Esq.
          Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104-1614
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  garfinkel@sgb-law.com
                  halm@sgb-law.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Ryan P. Hammond, Esq.
          Joanna M. Silverstein, Esq.
          Daniel L. Thieme, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One Union Square
          600 University Street
          Seattle, WA 98101-3122
          Telephone: (206) 623-3300
          E-mail: jsilverstein@littler.com
                  rhammond@littler.com
                  dthieme@littler.com


BANKERS LIFE: "David" Suit Plaintiffs File Appeal in 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christine David and Rodney Clure, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Christine David, et al.
v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-00766-RSL,
in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, Seattle.

The appellate case is captioned Christine David, et al. v. Bankers
Life and Casualty Co., Case No. 16-80072, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The plaintiffs assert that Bankers agents are employees, entitled
to overtime pay pursuant to the Washington Minimum Wage Act.
Prior to removal to the District Court, the state court certified
a class defined as: "All individuals who worked as agents for
Bankers Life and Casualty Company in the State of Washington at
any time between June 16, 2008 and December 2, 2013 and who were
classified as independent contractors."

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Adam Jared Berger, Esq.
          Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104-1614
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  halm@sgb-law.com

The Defendant-Respondent is represented by:

          Joanna M. Silverstein, Esq.
          Ryan P. Hammond, Esq.
          Daniel L. Thieme, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One Union Square
          600 University Street
          Seattle, WA 98101-3122
          Telephone: (206) 623-3300
          E-mail: jsilverstein@littler.com
                  rhammond@littler.com
                  dthieme@littler.com


BRANSON'S NANTUCKET: Class Certification Sought in "Estep" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the lawsuit captioned LAWRENCE ESTEP, on behalf of himself and the
class members defined herein v. BRANSON'S NANTUCKET, L.L.C., and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-01158-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), may
proceed as a class action against the Defendants.

The Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     * For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the
       Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Plaintiff seeks to
       represent two classes, A and B:

       Class A consists of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a
       date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c)
       received two or more calls from Defendant within a one
       year period (d) on a telephone listed on the National Do
       Not Call Registry; and

       Class B consists of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a
       date four years prior to the filing of this action (c)
       received a call on a cellular telephone from defendant,
       (d) placed using an automated dialer (e) with respect to
       whom defendant cannot provide evidence of consent.

     * For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the
       Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, Plaintiff also seeks to
       represent two classes:

       Class A consists of (a) all persons with telephones in the
       Illinois area codes (b) who, on or after a date 3 years
       prior to the filing of this action (c) received 2 or more
       calls from defendant within a one year period (d) on a
       telephone listed on the National Do Not Call Registry; and

       Class B consists of (a) all persons with telephones in the
       Illinois area codes (b) who, on or after a date 3 years
       prior to the filing of this action (c) received a call on
       a cellular telephone from defendant, (d) placed using an
       automated dialer (e) with respect to whom defendant cannot
       provide evidence of consent.

     * For purposes of Count III, alleging violation of the
       Illinois Restricted Call Registry Act, the Plaintiff seeks
       to represent one class consisting of (a) all Illinois
       residents who (b) during a period beginning one year prior
       to the filing of this action, (c) received a call from
       defendant (d) after having placed their telephone numbers
       on the National Do Not Call Registry more than 45 days
       prior to the call from defendant, (e) which call
       advertised the commercial availability of any property,
       goods, or services of defendant.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s0yhywOn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a settlement
agreement in the consolidated securities class action has been
granted final court approval.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July
6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the
same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012. On July 26, 2012, another
purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same
court by David Stein against the same defendants based upon the
same general set of allegations and class period. The complaints
allege 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 and seek unspecified monetary relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013. On
September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to Ashford
University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation process
and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied the motion
to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning Ashford
University's persistence rates.

Following the conclusion of discovery, the parties entered into an
agreement to settle the litigation for $15.5 million, which was
recorded by the Company during the third quarter of 2015 and
funded by the Company's insurance carriers in the first quarter of
2016. The settlement was granted preliminary approval by the Court
on December 14, 2015, proceeded through the shareholder claims
administration process, and was granted final approval by the
Court on April 25, 2016.

Bridgepoint is a provider of postsecondary education services.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Zamir" Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the motion to
dismiss the case, Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al.,
remains pending.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys'
fees.

On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.
On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming
from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also
names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg
Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus
Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants.

On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss,
which are currently pending with the Court.

The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise.
Based on information available to the Company at present, it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.

Bridgepoint is a provider of postsecondary education services.


BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Appeals District Court Ruling in "Taha" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The County of Bucks and the Bucks County Correctional Facility
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit captioned
Daryoush Taha v. County of Bucks, et al., Case No. 2-12-cv-06867,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is entitled Daryoush Taha v. County of Bucks,
et al., Case No. 16-8044, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported, Taha sought to be the lead plaintiff in a
class action suit brought pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal
History Record Information Act (CHRIA).  Taha alleged that Bucks
County and Bucks County Correctional Facility published the arrest
records of thousands of individuals on a public electronic search
tool in violation of the anti-dissemination provisions of CHRIA.
Summary judgment has already been granted in Taha's favor as to
the county defendants' liability.  Taha moved for class
certification.

District Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone found that Taha has
satisfied the demands of Rule 23(a) in demonstrating numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy.  The judge also found that
Taha has met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) by demonstrating
that questions common to the class predominate over those
affecting individual members and that a class action suit is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.

The Plaintiff-Respondent is represented by:

          Alan E. Denenberg, Esq.
          ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, P.C.
          1315 Walnut Street, 12th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 546-1345

               - and -

          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 553-7982
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

Defendants-Petitioners County of Bucks and Bucks County
Correctional Facility are represented by:

          Frank A. Chernak, Esq.
          Erin K. Clarke, Esq.
          Burt M. Rublin, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8234
          E-mail: chernakf@ballardspahr.com
                  clarkee@ballardspahr.com
                  rublin@ballardspahr.com

Defendant-Respondent Citizen Information Associates, dba
Mugshotonline.com, dba Bustedmugshots.com, is represented by:

          Jay B. Harris, Esq.
          FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS
          Ten Penn Center
          1801 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 893-9300
          E-mail: jharris@finemanlawfirm.com


CARMIKE CINEMAS: Shareholder Litigation Filed in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
Carmike Cinemas, 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 purported holder of
the Company's common stock ("Plaintiff") filed on April 25, 2016,
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, captioned Solak
v. Passman, et al., C.A. No. 4:16-cv-154 (CDL), against the
Company's directors, AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. ("AMC"), and
AMC's merger subsidiary arising from the proposed acquisition of
the Company by AMC (the "Merger").

Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the preliminary proxy statement
filed by the Company on March 31, 2016 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Merger
contained false and misleading statements and omitted material
information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, and further that the director defendants
are personally liable for those alleged misstatements and
omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In addition, Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the public
stockholders of the Company in connection with the Merger and that
AMC and its merger subsidiary aided and abetted those breaches.
Plaintiff's complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
Merger until the alleged Exchange Act violations and breaches of
fiduciary duties are remedied, to rescind the merger agreement or
any terms thereof to the extent such agreement or terms have
already been implemented, and an award of attorneys' and experts'
fees and costs.

Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation
matters with certainty, the Company believes that the claims
raised by the purported stockholder are without merit and intends
to defend against them vigorously.


CARSON SMITHFIELD: Class Certification Sought in "Schmitz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Schmitz moves the Court to certify the class described in
the amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT SCHMITZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CARSON SMITHFIELD, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00463-RTR (E.D. Wisc.).
He also asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vw2WfxhU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASHCALL INC: Status Conference Set for June 2 in "Kemply" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case LORI KEMPLY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CASHCALL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 08-cv-03174-MEJ (N.D. Cal.), following the
issuance of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court
ordered the parties to meet and confer on a plan of notice and
distribution of a statutory award of $500,000 to the conditioning
class members.  The parties timely filed a joint statement
regarding their proposed notice and distribution plan.

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James ordered the parties to meet and
confer, and file a joint statement by May 26, 2016 addressing:

"Why the parties propose to use the per-loan division of the
statutory award, providing support as to why the method of
distribution is appropriate under the law and/or the facts of the
case and how the parties propose to address the rounding issue in
the distribution of the statutory award, and why their proposal is
supported under the law and/or the facts of the case."

Additionally, the parties should submit either joint or competing
proposed judgments by the same date. The court will hold a status
conference on June 2, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, located
on the 15th Floor of the Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco, California.
A copy of Magistrate Judge James first order dated May 12, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/RLMqxffrom Leagle.com.

Eduardo De La Torre, Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, represented by
Damon Mathew Connolly -- damon@damonconnollylaw.com -- James C.
Sturdevant -- jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com -- at The Sturdevant
Law Firm; Whitney Stark -- wstark@tmdwlaw.com -- at Terrell
Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC; Arthur David Levy --
arthur@yesquire.com -- Melinda Fay Pilling -- mfpilling@gmail.com
-- Steven M. Tindall -- stindall@rhdtlaw.com -- at Rukin Hyland
Doria & Tindall LLP

Lori Saysourivong, Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, represented by
James C. Sturdevant -- jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com -- at The
Sturdevant Law Firm; Melinda Fay Pilling -- mfpilling@gmail.com --
Steven M. Tindall -- stindall@rhdtlaw.com -- at Rukin Hyland Doria
& Tindall LLP; Whitney Stark -- wstark@tmdwlaw.com -- at Terrell
Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC

Cashcall, Inc., Defendant/Counter-claimant, represented by Brad W.
Seiling -- bseiling@manatt.com -- Claudia Callaway -- Lydia
Michelle Mendoza -- lmendoza@manatt.com -- Noel Scott Cohen -- at
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP


CELGENE CORP: Discovery in IUB and Providence Cases Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the completion of fact
discovery and expert discovery is scheduled for August 1, 2017 and
December 15, 2017, respectively, in the cases by the International
Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund
(IUB); and the City of Providence.

The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB)
filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that
we violated various state antitrust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive
supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories
(Barr) allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide
active pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell
samples of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories so
that those companies can conduct the bioequivalence testing
necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to
market generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedly
bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and
Natco Pharma Limited in order to allegedly delay those companies
from obtaining approval for proposed generic versions of
THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a
putative class of third party payers, is seeking injunctive relief
and damages."

"On February 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint.

"On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence") filed a
similar putative class action making similar allegations. Both IUB
and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
third party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages.
Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's
complaint. A supplemental motion to dismiss Providence's state law
claims was filed on April 20, 2015. On October 30, 2015, the court
denied our motion to dismiss on all grounds.

"Celgene filed its Answer to the IUB and Providence complaints on
January 11, 2016. The completion of fact discovery and expert
discovery is scheduled for August 1, 2017 and December 15, 2017,
respectively. No trial date has been set. We intend to vigorously
defend against IUB's claims."


CELGENE CORP: Briefing on Atty. Fees to be Completed by June 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that briefing for
plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees is to be completed by June
29, 2016.

The Company said, "On July 20, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit, Scott v. Receptos, Inc., related to our acquisition of
Receptos, was commenced by the filing of a complaint in the Court
of Chancery for the State of Delaware, Case No. 11316, against
Receptos, members of the Receptos Board, Celgene and Celgene's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Strix Corporation, which is a party to
the acquisition agreement. Four other complaints, Cacioppo v.
Hasnain and Rosenberg v. Receptos, Inc. (Cases Nos. 11324 and
11325) filed on July 23, and Kadin v. Receptos, Inc., filed on
July 27 (Case No. 11337), and Rockaway v. Hasnain (Case No. 11346)
filed on July 28, 2015 raise similar putative class claims in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware against some or all of
Receptos, members of the Receptos Board, Celgene, and Strix
Corporation."

These complaints generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty by
members of the Receptos Board in connection with the Merger
Agreement. In the Scott, Rosenberg and Kadin actions, the
plaintiffs also allege that Celgene and Strix Corporation aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

On August 17, 2015, all parties to these actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which sets forth the parties'
agreement in principle for a settlement of the actions. As part of
the proposed settlement, prior to the closing, Receptos made
certain additional disclosures related to the acquisition. The
parties have since terminated settlement discussions.

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice to
plaintiff's right to seek an award of attorneys' fees.  The
briefing for plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees is to be
completed by June 29, 2016. Oral argument on the motion for
attorneys' fees will be held on July 21, 2016.


CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Contract Binds Constructor to Surcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Lawrence King of the Southern District of
Florida granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case DEERE
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
FLORIDA, LLC, and CEMEX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-24375-CIV-
KING (S.D. Fla.)

CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC and CEMEX, Inc. (Cemex)
are sellers of cement and ready-mix concrete. Deere Construction,
LLC (Deere) purchased cement and concrete from Cemex.

Purchases made from CEMEX by Deere are subject to the Standard
Terms and Conditions of the Credit Application, executed by Deere
on January 30, 2007, which contains a term on surcharges.

CEMEX charged Deere an agreed upon rate in exchange for providing
Deere with concrete. In addition to the agreed upon rate, CEMEX
also charged Deere a fuel surcharge and an environmental
surcharge. The fuel and environmental surcharges are charged to
every customer for every delivery, with very few exceptions.

Deere filed a complaint against Cemex and alleges that, in
connection with its purchase of concrete, Cemex fraudulently,
deceptively, and unfairly charged Deere for fuel surcharges and
environmental surcharges that are unrelated to Deeres' actual or
increased fuel or environmental costs. The complaint alleges
claims against Cemex for violation of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Section 501.201 et seq.
(FDUTPA) (Counts I and II), and unjust enrichment (Count III). The
complaint additionally alleges that Deere have been unjustly
enriched by the practices.

Cemex seek dismissal of the complaint in its entirety for failure
to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

Judge King granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Counts I and II
are dismissed without prejudice and count III is dismissed with
prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 20 days
of the date of the order.

A copy of Judge King's order dated May 12, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/2qEvO7from Leagle.com

Deere Construction, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M.
Moskowitz -- amm@kttlaw.com -- Javier Asis Lopez -- jal@kttlaw.com
-- Tal J Lifshitz -- tjl@kttlaw.com -- Harley Shepard Tropin --
hst@kttlaw.com -- at Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton PA; Howard
Mitchell Bushman -- hbushman@harkeclasby.com -- Lance August Harke
-- lharke@harkeclasby.com -- at Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP; James
Matthew Stephens -- mstephens@mmlaw.net -- at McCallum Methvin and
Terrell PC

Defendants, represented by Janelle M. Ans -- jherrera@knpa.com --
Jeffrey Todd Foreman -- jtf@kennynachwalter.com -- Michael
Nachwalter -- mn@kennynachwalter.com -- at Kenny Nachwalter, P.A.;
John A. DeVault, III -- John A. DeVault, III -- jad@bedellfirm.com
-- Patrick Power Coll -- ppc@bedellfirm.com -- at Bedell Dittmar
DeVault Pillans & Coxe


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Wins More Time to Answer in "Hampton" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 19, 2016, in the case titled
Nikyamicha Hampton, et al. v. Centene Management Company, LLC,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04693 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable John Robert Blakey.

The minute entry states that the Defendant's agreed motion for an
extension of time to answer or otherwise plead is granted.  The
Defendant's answer or other responsive pleading is now due on June
15, 2016.  The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, motion for
conditional collection action certification and corrected motion
for conditional collective action certification are all denied
without prejudice.

The Notification of Docket Entry notes that the Plaintiffs
presumably filed these preemptive motions in an effort to address
the concerns raised by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 897 (7th Cir. 2011).  In
light of Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016) and
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 786-87 (7th Cir.
2015), which expressly overruled Damasco, the Court says such
motions are not necessary.  The May 24, 2016 Notice of Motion
dates are stricken, and the parties need not appear.

The Court further ruled that the June 29, 2016 initial status
conference date and June 20 initial status report deadline stand.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6p1T6q44


CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in NYPL Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 NYPL v.
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. filed on January 22, 2016, a second
amended class action complaint naming Citibank and Citicorp as
defendants, in addition to Citigroup and numerous other foreign
exchange dealers. The defendants moved to stay or consolidate the
case with the consolidated proceeding captioned IN RE FOREIGN
EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional
information concerning this action is publicly available in court
filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Schofield, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in "Allen" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 plaintiff in ALLEN
v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. filed on April 6, 2016, a
second amended class action complaint against numerous foreign
exchange dealers, including Citigroup and Citibank. Additional
information concerning this action is publicly available in court
filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Court Rejects Bid to Dismiss ISDAFIX-Related Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 in the ISDAFIX-Related
Litigation, the court on March 28, 2016, denied defendants' motion
to dismiss the antitrust, breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims in plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint, while
granting the motion as to plaintiffs' claims of breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious
interference with contract. Additional information concerning this
action is publicly available in court filings under the
consolidated lead docket number 14 Civ. 7126 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman,
J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Suit Over Oceanografia Fraud
-------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 February 26, 2016,
a complaint was filed against Citigroup in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that
it conspired with Oceanografia, S.A. de C.V. (OSA) and others with
respect to receivable financings and other financing arrangements
related to OSA in a manner that injured bondholders and other
creditors of OSA.  The complaint asserts claims on behalf of 39
plaintiffs that are characterized in the complaint variously as
trade creditors of, investors in, or lenders to OSA.  Plaintiffs
collectively claim to have lost $1.1 billion as a result of OSA's
bankruptcy.  The complaint asserts claims under the federal civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks
treble damages and other relief pursuant to that statute.  The
complaint also asserts claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary
duty.  Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 16-20725 (S.D.
Fla.) (Gayles, J.).


CMRE FINANCIAL: Lisa Edgren Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Edgren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, moves the Court to certify a class in the lawsuit
entitled Lisa Edgren, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-05395 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff's Complaint, filed on May 19, 2016, sets forth that
the form debt collection letter, which the Defendant sent to her,
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts because the
initial collection letter failed to state the name of the creditor
to whom the debt was then owed, in violation of the FDCPA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UYr2G6Vj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Continuing in Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery is
underway in a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to
file a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which
was filed on October 5, 2015. The Company's motion to dismiss was
filed on November 4, 2015 and oral argument was held on April 11,
2016. Discovery is also continuing. The Company believes this
consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend
this case.


CONSUMER LAW: Settlement Agreement in "Guzman" Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Randal Hall of the Southern District of Georgia,
Augusta Division granted final approval to the settlement reached
in the case JUDY GUZMAN, on behalf of Herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP, P.A.;
AMERICAN CREDIT COUNSELORS, INC.; AMERICAN DEBT NEGOTIATORS, INC.;
BETOUCH MANAGEMENT VENTURE COMPANY; RAN BARNEA; DANIEL POST; and
MICHAEL METZNER; Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:1 l-cv-00187-JRH
(S.D. Ga.)

Judy Guzman alleges that defendants accepted charges, fees,
contributions and/or combinations thereof on or after July 1,
2003, in amounts exceeding those permitted by the Georgia Debt
Adjustment Act , O.C.G.A. Sections 18-5-1 to 18-5-4, in connection
with Guzman and other Georgia residents' participation in debt
adjusting plans. The court certified the lawsuit as a class
action.

Guzman entered into a settlement agreement in January 4, 2016 with
American Credit Counselors, Inc. (ACCI), Betouch Management
Venture Company (BMV), American Debt Negotiators, Inc. (ADNI), Ran
Barnea and Daniel Post (settling defendants) in which the parties
have agreed to settle the lawsuit pursuant to the terms of the
settlement agreement.

The court entered an order on February 12, 2016, that
preliminarily approved the class settlement, confirmed class
counsel, appointed a settlement administrator, directed that
notice be issued to the class and stayed prosecution of the
released claims. The court held a final fairness hearing on May
11, 2016, at which time it considered the fairness of the proposed
settlement of the action on a class basis and provided an
opportunity for any objectors to the settlement to raise any
objections to the settlement and the final certification of the
class for settlement purposes. No objections were made in writing
and filed with the clerk of court and no objections were made at
the May 11 hearing.

Guzman and the settling defendants filed a joint motion seeking
final approval of a class settlement, as well as the motion of
Guzman and her counsel for a class representative incentive award,
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation and costs of
administration of the settlement.

Judge Hall granted plaintiff's motions for final settlement class
certification, final approval of class settlement, and dismissal
and approval of class representative service awards,
administrative expenses, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

The court finally certifies the settlement class pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), (c), and (e),
finally approves settlement, awards Guzman class representative
service award of $2,500, awards the firm of Hull Barrett, P.C.
$25,000 in settlement administration expenses, awards class
counsel attorneys' fees of 33-1/3% of the settlement common fund
plus $14,343.88 in expenses. Directs class counsel, Guzman, and
the settling defendants to implement and consummate the settlement
according to its terms and conditions.

A copy of Judge Hall's order dated May 11, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/oAvFXDfrom Leagle.com.

Judy Guzman, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A. Cosper --
ccosper@hullbarrett.com -- David E. Hudson --
dhudson@hullbarrett.com -- at Hull Barrett, PC

The Consumer Law Group, P.A., Defendant, represented by The
Consumer Law Group, P.A.

American Credit Counselors, Inc., American Debt Negotiators, Inc.
and Betouch Management Venture Company, Defendants, represented by
Daniel M. King, Jr. -- danking@kinglawgroup.net -- at Daniel M.
King, Jr., LLC

Michael Metzner, Defendant, Pro Se

Ran Barnea, Defendant, represented by Douglas Edward Herman --
dherman@olivermaner.com -- Lauren E.H. Meadows --
lmeadows@olivermaner.com -- Timothy D. Roberts --
troberts@olivermaner.com -- at Oliver Maner, LLP; David Mitchell
Stewart -- david@crowderstewart.com -- at Crowder Stewart, LLP

Daniel Post, Defendant, Pro Se


CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Affirms Contempt Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSHUA KELLY; JOSE PINA; ANDREW IBARRA; RAY
BARRIOS; RANDY ENZMINGER; MICHAEL MIERA; PRISONER A; PRISONER F,
Individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TIMOTHY WENGLER;
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellants,
Nos. 13-35972, 14-35199 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders
finding the Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. (CCA) in
contempt, ordering remedial measures, and awarding the plaintiff
attorney's fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 23, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/IS4q1T from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs-appellees brought a putative class action in the
District of Idaho under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against the
defendants-appellants Timothy Wengler and the Corrections
Corporation of America, Inc. (collectively, CCA), alleging that
CCA staffed the Idaho Corrections Center (ICC) with an inadequate
number of security guards, in deliberate indifference to the
health and safety of prisoners.  The parties settled, and CCA
agreed to staff ICC with a specified number of security personnel.
The district court dismissed the case with prejudice,
incorporating the parties' settlement agreement into its dismissal
order.

After learning that staffing reports at ICC had been falsified
over a seven-month post-settlement period, the plaintiffs moved
the district court to hold CCA in contempt for violating the
dismissal order.

Nicholas D. Acedo (argued) -- nacedo@swlfirm.com -- Daniel P.
Struck -- dstruck@swlfirm.com -- Tara B. Zoellner --
tzoellner@swlfirm.com -- Struck Wienecke & Love, P.L.C., Chandler,
Arizona, for Defendants-Appellants.

Stephen L. Pevar (argued), American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, Hartford, Connecticut; Richard Alan Eppink, American
Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation, Boise, Idaho, for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.


COTY INC: Wins Dismissal of Securities Complaint
------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that a New York judge granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the securities complaint in its entirety.

During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("SDNY") against the Company, its directors
and certain of its executive officers, and the underwriters of the
initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO.
Those lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Coty Inc.
Securities Litigation, and following the court's appointment of
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended
complaint (the "Securities Complaint") was filed on July 7, 2014.
The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its
directors, and certain of its executive officers, under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's Class A Common Stock in the IPO, damages of an
unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief.

On September 9, 2014, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against the underwriter defendants without prejudice. The
Securities Complaint was further amended on October 18, 2014.

On March 29, 2016, Judge Sullivan of the SDNY ruled on the
Company's motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint holding that
the Company's motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint is
granted in its entirety. The court also denied the Plaintiffs'
request for leave to file a further amended complaint. Subject to
a possible appeal, the Company considers this matter closed.

Coty manufactures, markets and sells beauty products in the
Fragrances, Color Cosmetics, Skin & Body Care and Brazil
Acquisition segments with distribution in over 130 countries and
territories across both prestige and mass markets.


CVS HEALTH: Settlement Reached in "Lauriello" Action
----------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has
reached a settlement in the class action by John Lauriello.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly
on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others,
Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999
settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action,
but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the
Lauriello action.

Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an
Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedures
23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1).

In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order appointed class
representatives and class counsel. On September 12, 2014, the
Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's August 15, 2012
Order.

In November 2015, the trial court ruled on the parties' motions
for summary judgment. The Court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and the Court denied
Caremark's motion for summary judgment.

The parties engaged in mediation in January 2016. The parties have
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter.

In connection with this agreement, the Company has agree to
contribute a total of $80 million to the settlement fund and
agreed to forego its right to have its insurer continue to
reimburse its related legal fees, including legal fees of $3
million expensed in the first quarter of 2016.

The Company has established reserves related to this matter to
fully cover such payments. The settlement remains subject to
reaching agreement on final terms and to court approval. The
Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement to avoid
the burden, uncertainty and distraction of litigation.


CVS HEALTH: North Jackson Pharmacy's Class Cert. Bid Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a motion for class
certification filed by the North Jackson Pharmacy plaintiffs
against the Caremark defendants is currently pending.

Beginning in August 2003, various lawsuits were filed by
pharmacies alleging that Caremark and other pharmacy benefit
management ("PBM") were violating certain antitrust laws. In
August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns
Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4,
together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community
Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against
Caremark in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark, but later
returned to federal court, where it currently remains.

In addition, in October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North
Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs,
Inc., filed three separate putative class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
all seeking treble damages and injunctive relief.

One complaint named three Caremark entities as defendants, and the
other two complaints named PBM competitors. The North Jackson
Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities was transferred
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois; the case against the third Caremark entity was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
that entity. The arbitration was stayed at the parties' request
and later closed by the American Arbitration Association.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring all related PBM antitrust cases,
including the North Jackson Pharmacy cases, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and consolidated proceedings with the cases originally
filed in that court, including the Bellevue matter. The
consolidated action is now known as In re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation.  A motion for class certification
filed by the North Jackson Pharmacy plaintiffs against the
Caremark defendants in August 2015 is currently pending.

In the Bellevue matter, the parties have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case. The terms of the settlement are
confidential and not material to the Company's consolidated
financial statements. The settlement has been fully reserved in
the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company
denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement to avoid the
burden, uncertainty and distraction of litigation.


CVS HEALTH: Omnicare's Motion to Dismiss Pending
------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Omnicare's motion to
dismiss the case, Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD
Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No.
2:06cv26, is pending.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The consolidated
complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and
two of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all
open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3,
2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought
shares of Omnicare common stock in Omnicare's public offering in
December 2005. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and
injunctive relief.

After dismissals and appeals to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court remanded
the case to the district court.

In October 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a
third amended complaint. In December 2015, Omnicare filed a motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint.


CVS HEALTH: $48-Mil. Deal in "Medoff" Action Wins Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has entered
final judgment concluding the Medoff class action lawsuit and
approving the settlement of the case.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
by Richard Medoff, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS
Health Corporation stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009.
An amended complaint extended that time period back to October 30,
2008. The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as
defendants and includes allegations of securities fraud relating
to public disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM
business and allegations of insider trading.

In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by Mark
Wuotila in December 2009 in the same court against the directors
and certain officers of the Company. The derivative lawsuit, which
remained stayed pending developments in the related securities
class action, includes allegations of, among other things,
securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties
and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase
of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase
program.

In August 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the Medoff action for $48 million.  In February 2016, the
court entered final judgment concluding the matter and approving
the settlement.

The Company also has reached an agreement in principle to settle
the Wuotila derivative matter, pursuant to which the Company would
maintain or implement certain corporate governance measures and
pay the plaintiff's legal fees of $270,000. The settlement remains
subject to court approval.

The Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to settle these
matters to avoid the burden, uncertainty and distraction of
litigation. The settlements are funded by insurance proceeds.


CVS HEALTH: Discovery Proceeding in "Corcoran" & "Podgorny" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in July and September
2015, two related putative class actions, Corcoran et al. v. CVS
Health Corp., and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corp., were filed
against the Company in the United States District Court in the
Northern District of California and the Northern District of
Illinois, respectively. The two cases have been consolidated in
United States District Court in the Northern District of
California.

In March 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss.

Discovery is proceeding on the remaining allegations in the third
amended complaint, which alleges that the plaintiffs overpaid for
prescriptions for generic drugs filled at CVS pharmacies. The
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer
protection statutes and common laws of certain states.


CVS HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Sheet Metal Workers' Action
----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that two third-party payors
filed in February 2016 a putative class action, Sheet Metal
Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp.,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island. The Company has moved to dismiss this
complaint.


CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of ERISA Class Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an ERISA class action
lawsuit was filed in February 2016 against the Company, the
Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, and Galliard Capital
Management, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island by Mary Barchock, Thomas Wasecko, and
Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k) Plan and the
Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the "Plan"), and
participants in the Plan. The complaint alleges that the
defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and
the Plan by investing too much of the Plan's Stable Value Fund in
short-term money market funds and cash management accounts. The
Company has moved to dismiss the complaint.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeal Filed in "Kincaid" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Patrick Kincaid, Aster Tachebele and Hardrick Crawford
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Patrick
Kincaid, et al. v. Government of the District of Columbia, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00838-JDB on Jun 5, 2015, in United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.

According to a memorandum opinion entered by Judge John D. Bates
on April 14, 2016, the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD) is authorized by statute to let arrestees "post
and forfeit" an amount of money to speedily and finally resolve
certain low-level criminal charges.  The Plaintiffs are
individuals, who chose to resolve their charges in this manner but
think that the post-and-forfeit procedure is unlawful in various
ways.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Kincaid, et al. v.
Government of the District of Columbia, Case No. 16-7066, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Patrick Kincaid, Aster Tachebele and
Hardrick Crawford are represented by:

          William Charles Cole Claiborne, III, Esq.
          CLAIBORNE LAW
          717 D Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20004-2813

               - and -

          Lynn E. Cunningham, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LYNN E. CUNNINGHAM
          PO Box 1547
          Dubois, WY 82513-0000
          Telephone: (307) 455-3334
          E-mail: lcunningham@law.gwu.edu

Defendant-Appellee Government of the District of Columbia is
represented by:

          Loren L. AliKhan, Esq.
          DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          441 4th Street, NW
          One Judiciary Square, Sixth Floor
          Washington, DC 20001-2714
          Telephone: (202) 727-3400
          E-mail: loren.alikhan@dc.gov


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Maloney Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DEBBIE MALONEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00401-RTR (E.D.
Wisc.), filed with the Court an amended motion for class
certification and relief from memorandum, supporting documents,
and automatic briefing requirements.

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

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

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


The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EL PASO, TX: "Lutrell" Class Suit Plaintiffs File Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Lutrell, Andrew Davis, Moises Roman and Joe Rodriguez filed
an appeal from a court ruling to the Texas Court of Appeals.

The original case is styled Joshua Lutrell, Andrew Davis, Moises
Roman, Joe Rodriguez; and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. El Paso County, et al., Case No. 2014DCV3070, in the
County Court at Law No 5, El Paso.

The appellate case is captioned as Joshua Lutrell, Andrew Davis,
Moises Roman, Joe Rodriguez; and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. El Paso County, et al., Case No. 08-16-
00090-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Eighth Court of Appeals.

The Appellants are represented by:

          Mark T. Davis, Esq.
          1554 Lomaland Drive
          El Paso, TX 79935
          Telephone: (915) 603-5863
          Toll Free: (877) 733-0243
          Facsimile: (915) 629-9691

The Appellees are represented by:

          Jo Anne Bernal, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
          500 E. San Antonio, Room 503
          El Paso, TX 79901
          Telephone:  (915) 546-2083
          Facsimile:  (915) 546-2133
          E-mail: Joanne.bernal@epcounty.com


EQUIFAX INC: Judge Grants Reporting Agencies' Bid to Dismiss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss
in the case KATHLEEN N. PEDRO on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-3735-TWT (N.D. Ga.)

Plaintiff Kathleen Pedro's parents applied for and obtained a
Capital One credit card and made her an authorized user. In 2014,
Pedro's parents passed away, and the credit card account went into
default. On January 25, 2015, Pedro discovered that her credit
score had dropped from 822 to the low 700s on her credit report
from the defendant Equifax, Inc. Pedro learned that the reason for
the drop was a negative credit hit arising from her parents'
delinquent credit card account. A credit report from TransUnion,
LLC also revealed a similar negative credit hit. Pedro contacted
Capital One about the delinquent account, which resulted in
Capital One terminating the Pedro's authorized user status.

Pedro brought suit, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against TransUnion and Equifax. She asserts
that the defendants willfully violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b)
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Specifically, she alleges
that the procedures utilized by defendants in gathering and
scoring credit information relating to authorized users of credit
card accounts results in systematic inaccuracies on those
authorized user's credit reports and credit scores. And, as a
result of their unreasonable procedures, the defendants improperly
report the credit histories of authorized users of credit cards.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants knew or should have
known about their flawed procedures because they have received
thousands of disputes from consumers about negative credit hits
stemming from authorized user information. Pedro alleges that the
defendants knew that the credit furnishers were reporting negative
payment history for authorized user information.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case on the ground that
plaintiff has failed to adequately allege a willful violation of
Section 1681e(b).

Judge Thrash granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Thrash's opinion and order dated May 12, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/W9qFIEfrom Leagle.com.

Kathleen N. Pedro, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Kaufman --
akaufman@lchb.com -- Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com --
Kenneth S. Byrd -- kbyrd@lchb.com -- at Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein; Babak Semnar -- bob@semnarlawfirm.com -- Jared M.
Hartman -- jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com -- at Semnar &
Hartman, LLP; James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com --
at Francis & Mailman, P.C.; Kenneth S. Canfield --
kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles,
LLC; Matthew R. Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Michael
Joseph Boyle -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- at Meyer Wilson Co., LPA

Equifax, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Lewis Balser --
dbalser@kslaw.com -- Julia Constance Barrett -- jbarrett@kslaw.com
-- Zachary Andrew McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- at King &
Spalding LLP

TransUnion LLC, Defendant, represented by Alisa Taormina --
ataormina@stroock.com -- Brian C. Frontino --
bfrontino@stroock.com -- Stephen J. Newman -- snewman@stroock.com
-- at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP; Alex Michael Barfield -- at
Stanton Law, LLC


FARMERS INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Affirms Rejection of Expert Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
district court's denial of expert fees in the case RENE R.
RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
ARIZONA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-56031 (9th Cir.)

Plaintiff Rene Rodriguez settled a class action against defendant
insurance companies and asked the district court to award
attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs.

The district court awarded Rodriquez attorneys' fees and costs,
but declined to award expert fees.

Rodriquez appealed, challenging the district court's denial of
expert fees. Rodriquez suggests that she should have been given a
second opportunity to fix her defective motion.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of expert
fees.

A copy of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit's
memorandum dated May 12, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/dFmqktfrom Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson, Jay S. Bybee and Norman Randy
Smith.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Update in Hearing Loss Litigation in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court scheduled a
further status hearing regarding venue matters for May 25, 2016,
in the hearing loss litigation in Illinois.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was
filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.  An additional 40 Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel
later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine.

The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict
against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts
totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this verdict.

On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this
appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with
the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7,
2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for
leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.
On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case.

On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered for
these plaintiffs, which has resulted in final dismissal of these
cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition.

On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing
with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a
class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion,
the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During
a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March
11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motions to amend
their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will now
file motions to certify classes in these cases.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification. The Company also has filed motions to dismiss cases
involving firefighters located outside of Cook County based on
improper venue. Plaintiffs have requested discovery from the
Company related to these venue motions. The Court has scheduled a
further status hearing regarding venue matters for May 25, 2016.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Update on Hearing Loss Litigation in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has been
sued on hearing loss issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois
venue. Many of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a
single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009, this attorney filed a
total of 71 lawsuits involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction.
Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions
filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed.
Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums to
obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed
in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these
plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's
siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company
negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the
amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08
million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial,
involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred
in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company
as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The
third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter
plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a
defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all
plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials,
the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining
filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other
firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the
Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a
Global Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the
law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants,
on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represented (the
"Claimants") and who had asserted product claims against the
Company (the "Claims"). Three hundred eight of the Claimants had
lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company
pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to
settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of
the law firm in connection with its representation of the
Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to
be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who
agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release
acceptable to the Company (a "Release"), (ii) each Claimant who
agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had
to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29,
2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement
Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a
signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to
withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the
settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions
to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants
agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement
Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did
not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a
payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was
based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided
by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims
and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused
any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered
into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its
expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience,
uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and
involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of
these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving
these 2012 Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and
involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties
agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set
for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff.

In January 2015, plaintiffs' attorneys filed two new complaints in
the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of
approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast
majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are
located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these
cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District
of Columbia, has been removed to federal court in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. With respect to claims of other out-of-
state firefighters involved in these two cases, the Company moved
to dismiss these claims as improperly filed in Pennsylvania.

The Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims on
November 5, 2015. During August through December 2015, another
nine new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve a total of
193 firefighters, most of whom are located outside of
Pennsylvania. The Company is seeking dismissal of claims filed by
these out-of-state firefighters as improperly filed in
Pennsylvania.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff
firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the
Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court
dismissed claims of 55 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. The
Court has indicated that the first trials of these Pittsburgh
firefighters will occur in May, September and November 2016. Each
trial will involve eight firefighters.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment regarding all plaintiff firefighters involved in
the initial trial scheduled for May 2016. The plaintiffs have the
right to appeal this judgment.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Update on Hearing Loss Litigation in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that during March 2014, an
action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,
Pennsylvania on behalf of 61 firefighters. This case likewise
involves various defendants in addition to the Company. After the
Company filed pretrial motions, 33 Erie County firefighter
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims. On September 17,
2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193 Buffalo Fire
Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Erie County. Several product manufacturers,
including the Company, have been named as defendants in these
cases. All of the cases filed in Erie County, New York have been
removed to federal court in the Western District of New York.

During February 2015, a lawsuit involving one New York City
firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, New York County. The plaintiff named the Company as
well as several other parties as defendants. That case has been
transferred to federal court in the Northern District of New York.
The Company also is aware that a lawsuit involving eight New York
City firefighters was filed in New York County, New York, on April
24, 2015. The Company has not yet been served in that case.

During November 2015 through January 2016, 28 new cases involving
a total of 227 firefighters were filed in various counties in the
New York City area. During November 2015, the Company was also
served with a complaint filed in Union county, New Jersey state
court, involving 34 New Jersey firefighters. During January 2016,
three additional cases were filed in various New Jersey state
courts. These cases involve a total of 41 firefighters, most of
whom reside in New Jersey and work or worked at New Jersey fire
departments.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Update on Hearing Loss Litigation in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that from 2007 through
2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss claims against the
Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and Kings County, New
York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial,
including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New
York that were dismissed upon the Company's motion in 2008. On
appeal, the New York appellate court affirmed the trial court's
dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs' attorneys have threatened to
file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend
all of these lawsuits, if filed.

The Company's ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over
insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements
of a portion of the Company's defense costs. These reimbursements
are recorded as a reduction of corporate operating expenses. For
the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company
recorded $0.1 million and $0.1 million of reimbursements from CNA
related to legal costs, respectively.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Texas Securities Class Suit Awaits Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery has not yet
commenced in a class action litigation.

In November 2015, four putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against the Company and certain of its officers.
The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case, and an
amended complaint has been filed. The amended complaint asserts
that the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. The complaint seeks an award
of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class
consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between October 23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive.
In January 2016, three derivative lawsuits were filed, two in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas (which have since been
consolidated into one case) and one in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of the Company
against certain of its officers and its current directors. The
lawsuits allege violations of law, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
unjust enrichment against the defendants.

The Company believes the class action lawsuit and the derivative
lawsuits are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend
against all claims asserted. Discovery has not yet commenced. At
this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
outcome of this litigation.


FREDDIE MAC: FHFA Seeks Transfer of Jacobs and Hindes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Federal
Housing Finance Agency has filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer a case in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, Jacobs and Hindes vs.
FHFA and Treasury, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

This case was filed on August 17, 2015 as a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of a class of holders of preferred
stock or common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The
case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit,
purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as "nominal"
defendants. The complaint alleges, among other items, that the
August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement violated
applicable state law and constituted a breach of contract, as well
as a breach of covenants of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiffs seek equitable and injunctive relief (including
restitution of the monies paid by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to
Treasury under the net worth sweep dividend), compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

In March 2016, FHFA filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer this case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The Delaware Court
has stayed this case pending resolution of FHFA's motion.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Made Cash Settlement Payment of $31,616,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freightcar America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has made
the cash settlement payment of $31,616,000.

On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Illinois
Court"). The case named as defendants the United Steel, Paper &
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial &
Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"), as
well as approximately 650 individual Retiree Defendants (as
defined in the Complaint). On July 9, 2013, the USW and certain
Retiree Defendants (collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania
Court"), captioned as Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-146. Both of the complaints related to
the Company's decision to terminate welfare benefits previously
provided to the Retiree Defendants.

On August 20, 2015, the Company reached a settlement agreement
with the USW and the other plaintiffs. Pursuant to the settlement
agreement, the parties agreed that (1) USW will create a voluntary
employee's beneficiary association trust fund (the "VEBA") that
will administer the payment of health and welfare benefits to
class members and will be administered independently of the
Company, (2) the Company will make a one-time contribution to the
VEBA of $31,450,000, (3) the Company will pay an award for
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,300,000, (4) if
the Company fails to make the required payments to the VEBA prior
to February 16, 2016, interest on the unpaid amounts will accrue
at a rate of 5% per annum, subject to a cap of $250,000, and (5)
class members will fully and finally release all claims against
the Company in accordance with the terms of the settlement
agreement.

The Pennsylvania Court granted final approval of the settlement on
January 19, 2016. The plaintiffs had until February 18, 2016 to
file an appeal of the court order granting final approval of the
settlement.

On February 17, 2016, certain class members requested a 30-day
extension to file an appeal, which the Pennsylvania Court denied
on February 22, 2016. The Company made the cash settlement payment
of $31,616,000 (including $166,000 of interest) on March 25, 2016.


GALLIANO MARINE: Appeal Filed in "Halle" FLSA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Halle filed an appeal from a court ruling in the his lawsuit
entitled Kyle Halle v. Galliano Marine Service, LLC, et al., Case
No. 2:15-CV-5648, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

The original lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Kyle Halle v. Galliano Marine
Service, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-30558, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          David Isaac Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          David Matthew Korn, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P.
          365 Canal Street
          1 Canal Place
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 584-9374
          E-mail: david.korn@phelps.com


GILA RIVER INDIAN: No Quick Ruling on Bid to Intervene
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Neil V. Wake of the District of Arizona denied Gila
River Indian Community's motion to expedite ruling in the case
Carol Coghlan Carter, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kevin Washburn, et
al., Defendants, No. CV-15-01259-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz.)

The action originally brought by two sets of plaintiffs, each set
consisting of an Indian child and two non-Indian foster parents
seeking to adopt the child. The action challenges provisions of
the Indian Child Welfare Act concerning such children. It is a
putative class action on behalf of others similarly situated.

Both State and Federal defendants filed substantial motions to
dismiss challenging the action on grounds of lack of injury, lack
of standing, lack of ripeness, abstention, and failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Gila River Indian Community filed a motion to intervene with a
proposed motion to dismiss that itself challenges the plaintiffs'
standing.

When the plaintiffs had not filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add those additional plaintiffs by February 22, 2016,
the court ordered them to say whether and when they planned to do
so. On March 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend to add
another set of plaintiffs, which was granted by the court.

The Gila River Indian Community asks for an expedited ruling on
its motion to intervene. It also attaches to its motion a proposed
motion to dismiss first amended complaint.

Judge Wake denied Gila River Indian Community's motion to expedite
ruling on its motion to intervene as defendant.

A copy of Judge Wake's order dated May 13, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/xlzxfSfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Aditya Dynar,, Esq.
     Christina Maria Sandefur, Esq.
     Goldwater Institute
     500 E. Coronado Road
     Phoenix, AZ 85004
     Telephone: 602-462-5000
     Facsimile: 602-256-7045

          - and -

     Brian W Barnes, Esq.
     Harold S Reeves, Esq.
     Michael W Kirk, Esq.
     Cooper & Kirk PLLC
     1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Telephone: 202-220-9600
     Facsimile: 202-220-9601

Kevin Washburn and Sally Jewell, Defendants, represented by:

     Christine Wild Ennis, Esq.
     Judith B Harvey, Esq.
     Steven Edward Miskinis, Esq.
     US Dept of Justice
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
     Telephone: 202-514-2000

Gregory McKay, Defendant, represented by:

     Gary N Lento, Esq.
     John Stephen Johnson, Esq.
     Joshua Robert Zimmerman, Esq.
     Dawn Rachelle Williams, Esq.
     Melanie Grace McBride, Esq.
     Office of the Attorney General
     1275 W Washington St.
     Phoenix, AZ 85007
     Telephone: 602-542-5025

Navajo Nation Department of Justice, Intervenor Defendant,
represented by:

     Katherine Claire Belzowski, Esq.
     Navajo Nation Department of Justice
     P.O. Box 2010
     Windrock, AZ 86515
     Telephone: 928-871-6343

Gila River Indian Community, Movant, represented by Donald R
Pongrace -- dpongrace@akingump.com -- Merrill C Godfrey --
mgodfrey@akingump.com -- at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP;
Linus Everling -- Thomas L Murphy -- Executivemail@gric.nsn.us --
at Gila River Indian Community

NICWA, Movant, represented by:

     Erin C Dougherty, Esq.
     Matthew N Newman, Esq.
     Native American Rights Fund
     1506 Broadway
     Boulder, CO 80302-6296
     Telephone: 303-447-8760
     Facsimile: 303-443-7776

          - and -

     Paula M Yost, Esq.
     Samuel Kohn, Esq.
     1900 K Street NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: 202-496-7500
     Facsimile: 202-496-7756
     Email: paula.yost@dentons.com
           samuel.kohn@dentons.com

Casey Family Programs, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Center for the
Study of Social Policy, Child Welfare League of America,
Children's Defense Fund, Donaldson Adoption Institute, First Focus
Campaign for Children, FosterClub, Amicus, Generations United,
National Center on Adoption and Permanency, North American Council
on Adoptable Children, W. Haywood Burns Institute, National
Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds, Amici Curiae,
represented by Hyland Hunt -- hhunt@akingump.com -- James E Tysse
-- jtysse@akingump.com -- Pratik A Shah -- pshah@akingump.com -- Z
W Julius Chen -- chenj@akingump.com -- at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld LLP

NCAI and AAIA Amici Curiae, represented by:

     Erin C Dougherty, Esq.
     Matthew N Newman, Esq.
     Native American Rights Fund
     1506 Broadway
     Boulder, CO 80302-6296
     Telephone: 303-447-8760
     Facsimile: 303-443-7776

     - and -

     Paula M Yost, Esq.
     Samuel Kohn, Esq.
     1900 K Street NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: 202-496-7500
     Facsimile: 202-496-7756
     Email: paula.yost@dentons.com
           samuel.kohn@dentons.com

National Congress of American Indians, Association on American
Indian Affairs and National Indian Child Welfare Association,
Amici Curiae, represented by:

     Erin C Dougherty, Esq.
     Matthew N Newman, Esq.
     Native American Rights Fund
     1506 Broadway
     Boulder, CO 80302-6296
     Telephone: 303-447-8760
     Facsimile: 303-443-7776

          - and -

     Paula M Yost, Esq.
     Samuel Kohn, Esq.
     1900 K Street NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: 202-496-7500
     Facsimile: 202-496-7756
     Email: paula.yost@dentons.com
           samuel.kohn@dentons.com

          - and -

     Franklin Daughety, Esq.
     P.O. Box 837
     Sells, AZ 85634
     Telephone: 520-383-2080

          - and -

     Kathryn E Fort, Esq.
     Michigan State University College of Law
     648 N Shaw Ln
     East Lansing, MI 48824
     Telephone: 517-432-6800

Citizens Equal Rights Foundation, Amicus, represented by Michael
Kielsky, Kielsky Rike PLC

Ohio Attorney General, Amicus, represented by Michael John
Hendershot, Ohio Attorney General's Office


GLOBAL FITNESS: 6th Cir. Upholds Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch of the United States Court
of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the district court's decision
approving the settlement agreement in the case AMBER GASCHO, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GLOBAL FITNESS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant-
Appellee, ROBERT J. ZIK, APRIL ZIK, and JAMES MICHAEL HEARON (14-
3761); JOSHUA BLACKMAN (14-3798). Objectors-Appellants Nos. 14-
3761, 14-3798 (6th Cir.)

Global Fitness Holdings, LLC (Global) is a Kentucky limited
liability company that operated fitness facilities under the brand
name Urban Active in Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia, Nebraska, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee until October 2012, when it
sold its assets to the entity doing business as LA Fitness.

Amber Gascho and other plaintiffs filed suit against Global on
behalf of a class of Ohio consumers in Ohio state court in 2011.
Global removed the suit to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA).  Plaintiffs allege that between 2006 and 2012
Global sold gym memberships and incorrectly charged fees
pertaining to cancellation, facility maintenance, and personal
training contracts.

Global and class counsel reached a settlement in the case in
September 2013. The settlement permitted class counsel to apply
for $2.39 million in attorney's fees and costs, and contained a
clear sailing clause, an agreement from Global not to oppose any
application for that sum or less. The agreement also included a
kicker clause, an agreement that in the event the court awarded
less than $2.39 million for costs and fees, that amount would
constitute full satisfaction of Global's obligation for costs and
fees.

When class counsel and Global announced the settlement, Joshua
Blackman and the Ziks challenged its terms, both claiming that the
settlement was unfair under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
They argued that the class counsel's fees were disproportionate to
the claims paid, that the settlement unnecessarily required a
claims process, and that the settlement contained clear-sailing
and kicker provisions that suggest self-dealing by class counsel.
The Zik objectors further argued that the settlement must be
rejected because it failed to provide adequate compensation for
the Kentucky plaintiffs' state-law claims and for plaintiffs who
had signed an early, more favorable version of the contract.
The objectors appealed the district court's approval of the
settlement.

A copy of Circuit Judge Stranch's opinion dated May 13, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/regLkcfrom Leagle.com.

For Appellants in 14-3761:

     Joshua T. Rose, Esq.
     HUMMEL COAN MILLER, SAGE & ROSE LLC
     239 S 5th St #1700
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Telephone: 502-585-3084

Appellants in 14-3761 are also represented by:

     Gregory A. Belzley, Esq.
     BELZLEY BATHURST ATTORNEYS
     Prospect, KY 40059
     Telephone: 502-292-2452

For Appellant in 14-3798:

     Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
     CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS
     1899 L St NW
     Washington, DC 20036
     Telephone: 202-331-1010

For the Gascho Appellees:

     Kenneth J. Rubin, Esq.
     Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
     VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
     1909 K Street NW, Suite 900
     Washington, D.C. 20006-1152
     Telephone: 202-467-8800
     Email: kjrubin@vorys.com
            tnmccormick@vorys.com

The Gascho Appellees are also represented by:

     Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
     Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
     ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLP
     2 Miranova PI #700
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: 614-221-2121
     Email: gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
            mtroutman@isaacwiles.com

V. Brandon McGrath -- bmcgrath@bgdlegal.com -- at BINGHAM
GRENEBAUM DOLL LLP; Richard S. Gurbst --
richard.gurbst@squirepb.com -- Larisa M. Vaysman --
larisa.vaysman@squirepb.com -- at SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP,
Cleveland, for Appellee Global Fitness


GOOGLE INC: Calif. Judge Trims Free Range Content Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Jose dismissed only part of a class action
accusing Google of withholding money from four AdSense
advertisers, but allowed the core of the lawsuit to proceed.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed claims that
Google profited unjustly, defrauded the plaintiffs or engaged in
bad faith when terminating the publishing rights of four AdSense
users.

She refused to dismiss claims for liquidated damages, breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and unfair competition.

Freeman agreed with Google's argument that its failure to
terminate other AdSense users is not enough to establish faith, as
the other websites are not similar, and that "allegations of
selective enforcement are not enough to plead bad faith."

AdSense is a Google-run program that allows people to create ads
that appear on Google-administered websites such as its search-
engine page. The four publishers -- Free Range Content, Coconut
Island Software, Taylor Chose and Matthew Simpson -- all used
AdSense to earn money on a per-click or per-impression basis.

The dispute arose when Google kicked them out of AdSense, claiming
they violated its terms by publishing "invalid material."

Lead plaintiff Free Range Content acknowledged an unaccounted
spike in the number of clicks and associated revenue before it was
terminated, but said the spike was caused by unknown factors
beyond its control. It said it alerted Google to the problem and
stood ready to differentiate between valid and invalid clicks when
Google terminated its publishing rights.

It also claimed Google kept all of the revenue from its AdSense
publishing, including money it said had been generated by invalid
advertising methods.

The other three plaintiffs' claims are similar.

In terms of the core claims of the lawsuit, Freeman sided with the
plaintiffs.

"Taking the allegations are true, the challenged terms [of
service] are one-sided because they let Google withhold funds for
up to two months regardless of the severity of the purported
breach and even if the funds are earned through valid activity,
notwithstanding Google's supposed ability to distinguish between
valid and invalid ad serves," Freeman wrote.

She added: "While a more developed record may reveal that Google
is justified in withholding the entirety of unpaid earnings,
plaintiffs offer sufficient allegations to survive the pleading
stage on this issue."

However, Freeman found the two individual plaintiffs, Chose and
Simpson, did not have valid payment-related claims because they
failed to register complaints within 30 days.

Freeman rejected the fraud claims, for failure to show which
specific statement they relied on that caused them to purchase
something and turned out not to be true.

"The court agrees with defendant that plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege reliance."

Nevertheless, the breach of contract claims, the claims relating
to how Google liquidated funds after the publishing rights were
terminated, and other related unfair business practices claims
were allowed to go forward.

Google did not respond to a request for comment. It is represented
by Jeffrey Gutkin with Cooley LLP in San Francisco.

Patrick Howard, attorney for Free Range Content, did not
immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. He is with
Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky in Philadelphia.

The case captioned, FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-02329-BLF (N.D. Cal.)


HARRIS CTY, TX: Certification of Class Sought in "ODonnell" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maranda Lynn ODonnell asks the Court to certify a class in the
lawsuit styled MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, SHERIFF RON
HICKMAN, ERIC STEWART HAGSTETTE, JOSEPH LICATA III, RONALD
NICHOLAS, BLANCA ESTELA VILLAGOMEZ, JILL WALLACE, Case No. 4:16-
cv-1414 (S.D. Tex.).

The Plaintiff alleges that Harris County jailing some of its
poorest people because of their inability to pay a small amount of
money.  Ms. ODonnell, an arrestee, contends that she is imprisoned
by the County because she cannot afford to pay the amount of money
generically set by the fixed "bail schedule" used by Harris County
and the jail with which it contracts.

On behalf of the many other individuals subjected to the
Defendants' illegal post-arrest wealth-based detention scheme, the
Plaintiff challenges in the Action the use of Harris County's
predetermined schedule of money bail that operates to detain only
the most impoverished of arrestees.

Ms. ODonnell proposes to certify this Class for the purpose of
pursuing declaratory and injunctive relief: All individuals, who
are or will be detained by Harris County for any amount of time
after arrest because they are unable to pay money bail.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal S. Manne, Esq.
          Lexie G. White, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          E-mail: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com
                  lwhite@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Michael Gervais, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          E-mail: mgervais@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          Elizabeth Rossi, Esq.
          ATTORNEYS, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          South Building, 9th Floor
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 670-1004
          E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
                  erossi@equaljusticeunderlawl.org


HENRY SCHEIN: Defending Class Suits Over Dental Supplies
--------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that beginning in January
2016, class action complaints were filed against Patterson
Companies, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co. and Henry Schein, Inc.
Each of these complaints allege, among other things, that
defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate customers and
foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental
associations and others that deal with defendants' competitors.
Subject to certain exclusions, these classes seek to represent all
persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the United
States directly from any of the defendants or Burkhart Dental
Supply Co. since August 31, 2008.  Each class action complaint
asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly
and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and expert fees.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these actions,"
the Company said.


HSBC BANK: Donald Weschsler Filed Appeal in Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald Weschsler filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
purported class action lawsuit entitled Weschsler v. HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., Case No. 15-cv-5907, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Weschsler v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., Case No. 16-1620, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3278
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Louis Smith, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360-7900
          E-mail: smithlo@gtlaw.com


HSBC FINANCE: "Monteleone" Class Action Filed in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action entitled Monteleone v. HSBC Finance Corporation, et al. was
filed in April 2016 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against HSBC Finance Corporation,
HSBC Mortgage Corporation, HSBC Mortgage Services Inc., HSBC Bank
USA and HTSU. The action alleges that the HSBC defendants
contacted plaintiff, or the members of the class he seeks to
represent, on their cellular telephones using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,
without prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec.227 et seq. Plaintiff seeks
statutory damages of at least $500 for each violation. This action
is at a very early stage.


HSBC USA: Settlement in Overdraft Suit Awaits Final OK
------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that at the final
settlement approval hearing in the Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation held on April 6, 2016, the state court indicated that
an order and decision on final approval would be forthcoming.


HSBC USA: Settlement in CDS Antitrust Case Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the U.S District Court
for the Southern District of New York on April 18, 2016, issued an
order granting final approval of the settlement in In re CDS
Antitrust Litigation.


HSBC USA: Interest Rate Swaps Litigation in Early Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that HSBC Bank USA, HSBC
Securities (USA) Inc. ("HSI"), and HSBC Bank plc have been named
as defendants, among others, in a putative class action brought in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
relating to interest rate swaps. Public School Teachers' Pension
and Retirement Fund of Chicago and Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. The action alleges that the
defendants conspired to restrain trade in violation of the federal
anti-trust laws by, among other things, restricting access to
interest rate swap pricing exchanges and blocking new entrants
into the exchange market, with the purpose and effect of
artificially inflating the bid/ask spread paid to buy and sell
interest rate swaps in the United States. This matter is at a very
early stage.


HSBC USA: Motion to Dismiss Gold Fix Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company awaits the
Court's decision on the motion to dismiss in the case, In re
Commodity Exchange Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading
Litigation (Gold Fix Litigation) The motion to dismiss was argued
in April 2016.


HSBC USA: Motion to Dismiss Silver Fix Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
awaiting the Court's decision on the motion to dismiss the case,
In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd. Antitrust Litigation (Silver Fix
Litigation).  The motion to dismiss was argued in April 2016.


HSBC USA: 2 Silver Fix Cases Filed in Canada
--------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in April 2016 two
putative class action "Notices of Action" were filed in the
Superior Court of Justice, Provinces of Ontario and Quebec,
Canada, against, among others, HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC USA, HSBC
Securities (USA) Inc. ("HSI"), HSBC Bank Canada and HSBC
Securities Canada. The Notices of Action allege, among other
things, that defendants conspired to manipulate the price of
silver and silver derivatives during the London Silver Fix. These
actions are in the early stages.


HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Benchmark Rate Litigation Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that defendants' motion to
dismiss was denied in March 2016, in the consolidated actions
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of persons who transacted in interest rate
derivative transactions or purchased or sold financial instruments
that were either tied to U.S. dollar International Swaps and
Derivatives Association fix ("ISDAfix") rates or were executed
shortly before, during, or after the time of the daily ISDAfix
setting window. HSBC Bank USA is the only named HSBC entity.


ILLINOIS: Settlement in Case Over Mentally Ill Inmates Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Peoria, Ill has approved a settlement that
requires Illinois prisons to provide specialized care for
approximately 11,000 mentally ill prisoners.

Drawing from the lawsuit's claim that Illinois let mentally ill
inmates go "chronically underdiagnosed and undertreated," Dentons
attorney Harold Hirshman said in an interview that the state took
"a very needy population" and "essentially let them fester."

The settlement promises these inmates both long-term and acute
care "for the first time ever," co-counsel at Dentons, Equip for
Equality, Mayer Brown, and Uptown People's Law Center said in a
statement May 13.

"Previously, these very ill people were either relegated to
solitary confinement, or left for months in 'crisis cells,' where
they are stripped of all possessions, left totally isolated from
other prisoners, and watched 24 hours a day to ensure they do not
commit suicide," they attorneys added.

In addition to building residential treatment units, at a cost of
$40 million, the settlement also calls for $40 million a year in
personnel costs to have more than 300 new clinical staff provide
treatment.

Construction is already underway for facilities at Logan, Pontiac,
and Dixon Correctional Centers, and the now-closed Illinois Youth
Center in Joliet.

Dentons attorney Hirshman said he got involved in the 2007 case
after representing individuals in various prison cases gave him a
"sense that the system itself was flawed."

Wexford did not return a voicemail requesting comment on the
settlement from Courthouse News. The Illinois Department of
Corrections emphasized in a statement that the settlement does
involve any admission of liability."

IDOC does, however, "recognize that providing adequate care for
offenders with mental illness will improve their quality of life
and ultimately improve safety within its correctional facilities,"
its statement continues.

Ashoor Rasho is the lead plaintiff in the case. The third amended
class action accused the IDOC and its medical-services contractor,
Wexford Health Sources Inc., of having "failed miserably to deal
with the problem" of soaring instances of mental illness in
similarly swelling prison populations.

These inmates "are subjected to brutality instead of compassion,"
the lawsuit states.

Hirshman said he and co-counsel "found hundreds of examples" of
people being mistreated.

Illinois prisons do not require or monitor medication; sometimes
give inmates consultations at their cell doors where everyone can
hear, and capriciously transfer prisoners in and out of mental
health units, according to the lawsuit.

Hirshman said people are found "cowering in their cells because
they are overmedicated." He added that guards often taunt their
prisoners with mental health issues, and they are encouraged to
fight with other inmates.

Even though segregation units tend to worsen symptoms, that is
where mentally ill inmates often end up for misbehaving, according
to the lawsuit.

"Prisoners on suicide watch are neglected, abused, or both," the
complaint states. "They can be stripped naked; placed in a cell
with no mattress or blankets; put in four-point restraints."

Sometimes mental illness alone accounts for inmates spending more
time in prison than those convicted of much more serious offenses,
according to the complaint.

Hirshman said many inmates see "their mental health destroyed by
the system," where prison staff are not properly trained and the
facilities to treat the mentally ill are severely lacking.

Once the agreement takes effect, "all of the major problems will
have been addressed," Hirshman said.

"We feel like they're committed to making an enormous step
forward," says Hirshman of IDOC.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mihm signed off on the
settlement May 13.


INVENTURE FOODS: Facing Westmoreland County Suit in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that on April 4, 2016, a
complaint captioned Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund
v. Inventure Foods Inc. et al., Case No. CV2016-002718, was filed
in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
Capital Foods, LLC, and the underwriters of ist secondary
securities offering that closed September 14, 2014 (the "September
2014 Offering").

The Company said, "The complaint, brought as a purported class
action on behalf of purchasers of our Common Stock in the
September 2014 Offering, alleges violations of the Securities Act
and focuses in particular on our facility in Jefferson, Georgia.
The plaintiff seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief deemed
appropriate by the court.  We believe the claims asserted in the
complaint are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend
against them."


JCJ VENTURES: Ventrone Seeks of Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette Ventrone filed a renewed motion for conditional
certification and facilitation of court-authorized notice in the
lawsuit titled JEANETTE VENTRONE, on her own behalf and others
similarly situated v. J. C. J. VENTURES OF PINELLAS INC. I, d/b/a,
"Dockside Daves," Case No.: 8:15-cv-01743 (M.D. Fla.).

The Case is a collective action to enforce the overtime and
minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately 1999 through
2015.  Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to facilitate notice to
all hourly-paid wait-staff laborers, who worked in Defendant's St.
Petersburg Beach /Madeira Beach, Florida facilities who: (1)
worked more than 40 hours per week; and (2) were not paid proper
overtime compensation for all of their hours worked over 40 each
week, and (3) who were directed to work off the clock by the
Defendant as well as those who were not paid the full measure of
the minimum wages on account of the Defendant's violation of
Section 3(m) of the FLSA.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esg.
          LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, PA
          2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


JP MORGAN: Appeal Filed in 2nd Circuit in "Stikas" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Stikas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed an appeal from a court ruling in her purported
class action lawsuit titled Stikas v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Case
No. 14-cv-1277, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Stikas v. J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, Case No. 16-1629, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Neal DeYoung, Esq.
          SHARMA & DEYOUNG
          555 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (203) 731-7558
          E-mail: neal@sharmadeyoung.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          James Bernard, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-5684
          Facsimile: (212) 806-6006
          E-mail: jbernard@stroock.com


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal Filed in "Flores" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Chavez Flores, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in their lawsuit styled Jaime Chavez Flores, et al. v.
Knight Transportation Inc, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01817-SRB, in
the U.S. District Court for the District Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is titled Jaime Chavez Flores, et al. v. Knight
Transportation Inc, et al., Case No. 16-1589, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Alvin Gomez, Esq.
          GOMEZ LAW GROUP
          853 Camino Del Mar
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (858) 552-0000
          Facsimile: (760) 720-5217
          E-mail: amglawyers@yahoo.com

Defendant-Appellee Knight Transportation Inc., doing business as
Arizona Knight Transportation Incorporated, is represented by:

          James Eric Hart, Esq.
          Thomas J. Whiteside, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2050 Main Street
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 705-3003
          E-mail: jhart@littler.com
                  twhiteside@littler.com

               - and -

          Kai-Ching Cha, Esq.
          Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: kcha@littler.com
                  rrahm@littler.com

               - and -

          Kristy L. Peters, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2425 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 474-3639
          E-mail: kpeters@littler.com


KRIEGER KIDDIE: Wins Initial Approval of "Mello" Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 19, 2016, in the case styled
Kyle Mello, et al. v. Krieger Kiddie Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-05660 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- for the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiffs'
      unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
      settlement is granted;

   -- final approval hearing is set for July 14, 2016, at 9:00
      a.m.;

   -- motion for final approval will be filed by July 7, 2016;

   -- motion for attorney fees will be filed by July 8, 2016; and

   -- Plaintiffs' class certification motion is denied as moot,
      without prejudice to renewal if the settlement falls
      through or is disapproved at the final approval
      hearing.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zx2khPfl


LAOS: U.S. Judge Threatens to Dismiss Suit Over Wrongful Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the Eastern District of
California vacated the orders and findings and recommendations in
the case HMONG I, a fictitious name, on behalf of herself and as
representative of members of a class of similarly situated
claimants, Plaintiff, v. LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC; et al.,
Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-2349 TLN AC (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Hmong I, a fictitiously named real person, who resides
in an unspecified location in Southeast Asia filed a suit against
the country of Laos, its sitting President and Prime Minister, the
Ministers of Defense, Justice and Public Security, and General
Bounchanh for the wrongful death of her husband, and seeks an
injunction to, among other things, allow the Hmong people to
reside in Laos in peace. She sues under the Alien Tort Statute
(ATS), 28 U.S.C. Section 1350.

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a campaign of
atrocities against a group of Hmong people in Laos, after the
Vietnam War. The campaign was intended to achieve the
extermination of those among the Hmong people who had joined, or
who had some connection with, the Secret Army.

The complaint further alleges that defendants' conduct was
undertaken in violation of international law, and in violation of
the 1962 Geneva Convention, the 1966 International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and the 1973 Vientiane Ceasefire
Agreement. The complaint also alleges that defendants' conduct
violated various Laotian laws.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. On March
14, 2016, Magistrate Judge Claire issued findings and
recommendations. Plaintiff filed objections pointing out that the
findings incorrectly stated that plaintiff had not responded to
the Suggestion of Immunity filed by the United States, as in fact,
plaintiff had responded to the Suggestion of Immunity.

Plaintiff moved for entry of default judgments.

Magistrate Judge Claire vacated the order and findings and
recommendation of March 14, 2016 and denied plaintiff's request
for leave to file additional materials.

Magistrate Judge Claire recommended that the plaintiff's motion
for default judgment should be denied in its entirety. Plaintiff
should be ordered to show cause why the lawsuit against the
sitting President and Prime Minister of Laos should not be
dismissed with prejudice based upon the Suggestion of Immunity and
plaintiff should be ordered to show cause why the remainder of the
lawsuit should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Within 21 days after being served with the findings and
recommendations, plaintiff and the United States may file written
objections with the court.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Claire's order and amended findings and
recommendations dated May 17, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/ptLw0Lfrom Leagle.com.

Hmong I, Plaintiff, represented by Herman A. D. Franck, V --
franckherman@hotmail.com -- at Law Offices of Herman Franck

United States of America, Movant, represented by Gerard Justin
Cedrone, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division


LIVE NATION: Appeals Related to Ticketing Fees Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that all appeals
related to the so-called Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action
Litigation have been dismissed.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period.

In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint adding new claims that (a)
Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable under the
UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further
violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs
later filed a third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed
a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's
demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high.

In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate
with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class
certification order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied
plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class
certification order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's
Petition for Writ of Mandate.

In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs' Petition
for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to vacate its
February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a
national class and enter a new order granting plaintiffs' motion
to certify a nationwide class on the first and second claims. In
September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for Summary Judgment
on all causes of action in the Superior Court, and that same month
plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Adjudication of various
affirmative defenses asserted by Ticketmaster.

In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to Decertify
Class.  In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding
agreement providing for the settlement of the litigation and the
resolution of all claims therein.

In September 2011, the Court declined to approve the settlement in
its then-current form. Litigation continued, and later that same
month, the Court granted in part and denied in part Ticketmaster's
Motion for Summary Judgment.

The parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
preliminarily approved, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval. In June 2013, the parties reached a
revised settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court
in April 2014.

In February 2015, the Court granted the parties' motion for final
approval of the settlement. Several objectors to the settlement
appealed the Court's final approval ruling. On March 18, 2016, all
appeals were dismissed, thus resolving this matter, and on March
30, 2016, the Company funded a portion of the settlement primarily
related to the plaintiffs' attorney fees. Ticketmaster and its
parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of law
or liability in connection with the matter.

As of March 31, 2016, the Company had accrued $16.8 million, its
best estimate of the probable remaining costs associated with the
settlement referred to above, which was recorded in prior years.
The calculation of this liability is based in part upon an
estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the Company's
estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate it
experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however, the
Company does not expect this difference to be material.


LOUISIANA CRANE: Bid for Expedited Notice Filed in "Salazar" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled CARLOS BENIGNO SALAZAR,
JOSE CRUZ RESENDEZ, III, BIBIANO DANIEL GONZALEZ, RUBEN OSORIO
GONZALEZ RODOLFO GODINEZ, ALBERTO MARQUEZ, HOMERO VALADEZ, JR., &
LUIS ALEJANDRO v. LOUISIANA CRANE & CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Case No.
5:16-cv-00036 (S.D. Tex.), filed with the Court a motion for
expedited notice to potential plaintiffs and to toll the statute
of limitations.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dbk6ggzi

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Javier Espinoza, Esq.
          ESPINOZA LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2211 Danbury St.
          San Antonio, TX 78217
          Telephone: (210) 229-1300
          Facsimile: (210) 229-1302


MARCOAH GROUP: Certification of Class Sought in Byer Clinic Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned BYER CLINIC OF
CHIROPRACTIC, LTD., an Illinois corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
MARCOAH GROUP USA LLC and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05318
(N.D. Ill.), submits its motion for class certification pursuant
to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Plaintiff proposes this class definition:

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARRONE BIO: Aug. 25 Settlement Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the Eastern District of
California will hold a settlement hearing for August 25, 2016, in
the case SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS
CAYMAN FUND, L.P. and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually and On Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE,
JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER,
RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH
HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN
SCHICKENDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.)

Lead plaintiffs Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special
Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., with additional named plaintiff
David M. Fineman, and defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc.,
Pamela G. Marrone, James B. Boyd, Donald J. Glidewell, Hector
Absi, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag, Tim Fogarty,
Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard Rominger, Shaugn
Stanley, and Sean Schickedanz, by and through their undersigned
counsel, jointly submitted a stipulation for settlement-related
events.

The Court also approved a stipulated schedule for settlement-
related events.

A copy of the stipulation and order dated May 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/Ht3eoZfrom Leagle.com.

Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Special Situations Cayman
Fund, L.P., and David M. Fineman, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- at
Lowenstein Sandler LLP

Kent Oldham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S Green --
rsg@classcounsel.com -- at Green & Noblin, P.C.

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone, James B. Boyd,
Donald J. Glidewell, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag,
Tim Fogarty, Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard
Rominger, Shaugn Stanley and Sean Schickedanz, Defendants,
represented by Judson Earle Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- at
Morrison & Foerster LLP

Hector Absi, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell --
jlobdell@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP; John V. McDermott
-- jmcdermott@bhfs.com -- Jonathan Charles Sandler --
jsandler@bhfs.com -- at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

Piper Jaffray & Co., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Jefferies, LLC,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Charlene Sachi Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- Lucy
Han Wang -- lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP

Ernst & Young, LLP, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Dianne
Mann -- emann@mayerbrown.com -- Stanley J Parzen --
sparzen@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown and Platt

Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. and Special Situations Fund
III QP, L.P., Movants, represented by Lawrence M. Rolnick --
lrolnick@lowenstein.com -- John McGaughey --
mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Steven M. Hecht --
shecht@lowenstein.com -- Thomas E. Redburn, Jr. --
tredburn@lowenstein.com -- at Lowenstein Sandler LLP

Marrone Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jon A. Tostrud --
at Tostrud Law Group, P.C.

United States of America, Movant, represented by Todd A. Pickles,
United States Attorney's Office


MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL: Class Status Denied in "Johnson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges of the District of South Carolina
denied plaintiffs' motion for joinder and class action status in
the case entitled Carl Dante Johnson, #354452, Plaintiff, v.
Director Bryan P. Stirling and Cpl. Harold Campbell, Defendants.
Garren Norris, #281530, Plaintiff, v. Director Bryan P. Stirling
and Cpl. Harold Campbell, Defendants. Quinton Inman, #298283,
Plaintiff, v. Director Bryan P. Stirling and Cpl. Harold Campbell,
Defendants, C/A Nos. 1:15-4942-RMG-SVH, 1:15-4961-JFA-SVH, 1:15-
4962-JMC-SVH (D.S.C.)

Plaintiffs Carl Dante Johnson, Garren Norris, and Quinton Inman
are inmates at the McCormick Correctional Institute of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). Each plaintiff
individually filed a pro se action against Director Bryan P.
Stirling and Cpl. Harold Campbell for monetary damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Plaintiffs allege in their complaints that on June 29, 2015, they
were among 13 inmates being transported to Kirkland Correctional
Institution in a SCDC bus when Cpl. Campbell intentionally slammed
on the breaks of the bus when some inmates refused to sit down.
Plaintiffs allege that during the incident, they suffered medical
injuries that were ignored by Cpl. Campbell. Plaintiffs assert
that Director Stirling is the executor of an SCDC policy that
excludes seatbelt requirements for transportation buses and that
being shackled and unsecure are serious risks to inmate health.
Plaintiffs request the court enjoin the transport of inmates on
SCDC buses without seatbelts.

Plaintiffs filed identical motions for joinder and class action
status pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) and 23(a) to join the
three actions together, along with a fourth case pending before
another Magistrate Judge, the case of Chisolm v. Campbell et al,
C/A No.: 4:15-4943-RBH-TER, or in the alternative, to grant
plaintiffs and Chisolm class action status.

Magistrate Judge Hodges denied plaintiffs' motions for joinder and
class action status.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Hodges's order dated May 12, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/PiHFySfrom Leagle.com.

Carl Dante Johnson, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by Benjamin Houston Joyce --
ben.joyce@hoodlaw.com -- Harry Cooper Wilson --
cooper.wilson@hoodlaw.com -- Robert H Hood --
bobbyjr.hood@hoodlaw.com -- at Hood Law Firm


MCKENZIE CHECK: Fla. Appeals Court Reversed "Betts" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jonathan D. Gerber of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida, Fourth District, reversed the order on appeal and
remanded the appealed case of McKENZIE CHECK ADVANCE OF FLORIDA,
LLC d/b/a NATIONAL CASH ADVANCE, STEVEN A. McKENZIE, BRENDA G.
LAWSON, and unknown entities and individuals, Appellants, v. WENDY
BETTS, DONNA REUTER and TIFFANY KELLY, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Appellees, No. 4D15-1893, (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App.)

Wendy Betts and Donna Reuter filed a class action lawsuit against
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC (McKenzie), and its
principals Steven McKenzie and Brenda Lawson. The plaintiffs
alleged that the check cashing company lent money to consumers in
a deceptive and usurious manner.

The defendants moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff Reuter's
claims based on an arbitration provision in her loan contracts.
Based on the arbitration provision, the circuit court granted the
defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stayed plaintiff
Reuter's claims against the check cashing company. The court did
not stay plaintiff Reuter's claims against the individual
defendants.

On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the
circuit court's decision.

Some years later, plaintiff Tiffany Kelly was added to the action.
She signed an arbitration provision nearly identical to the one
which plaintiff Reuter signed. The defendants moved to compel
arbitration of plaintiff Kelly's claims. Plaintiff Kelly opposed
the motion and argued that the arbitration provision's class
action waiver was unconscionable and violated public policy by
depriving her of any meaningful remedy under Florida's remedial
statutes.

The court denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The
court found that the arbitration provision's class action waiver,
though not unconscionable, violated public policy by depriving
plaintiff Kelly and other similarly situated customers of any
meaningful remedy.

On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, affirmed the
circuit court's finding that the arbitration provision's class
action waiver violated public policy (McKenzie I).

On review, the Florida Supreme Court, in McKenzie Check Advance of
Fla., LLC v. Betts (McKenzie II), quashed McKenzie I based on the
United States Supreme Court's intervening decision in AT&T
Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333.

After McKenzie II, the District Court of Appeal of Florida
remanded the case to the circuit court. In the circuit court, the
defendants filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration of
plaintiff Kelly's individual claims.

Plaintiffs Reuter and Kelly filed a response to the defendants'
motion, and filed their own motion requesting referral of their
remaining class action claims to arbitration. At a hearing on both
motions, the defendants argued that McKenzie II dictated the
outcome because the Florida Supreme Court already held the class
action waiver was enforceable. The defendants contended that the
law of the case precluded the plaintiffs' argument.

In response, the plaintiffs argued that McKenzie II merely held
the class action waiver was enforceable under the FAA. Therefore,
the plaintiffs contended, the class action waiver's application
still was a matter of contract interpretation reserved for the
arbitrator.

The circuit court entered an order granting the defendants'
renewed motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Kelly's
individual claims. The circuit court also granted plaintiff
Reuter's and plaintiff Kelly's motion requesting referral of their
remaining class action claims to arbitration. In its order, the
circuit court rejected the defendants' argument that the law of
the case doctrine applied. The circuit court reasoned that
McKenzie II upheld only the enforceability of the class waiver,
but did not decide whether class arbitration is available under
the arbitration provision.

The defendants appeal from the circuit court's non-final order
referring to an arbitrator the issue of whether an arbitration
provision in the parties' loan contracts permits the plaintiffs to
pursue their class action claims in arbitration. The defendants
primarily argue that prior appellate proceedings already have
determined that the arbitration provision's class action waiver is
enforceable.

Judge Gerber reversed the order on appeal and remanded the case to
the circuit court to refer only the plaintiffs' individual claims
to arbitration.

A copy of Judge Gerber opinion dated May 18, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/qdHOHXfrom Leagle.com.

Lewis S. Wiener -- lewis.wiener@sutherland.com -- at Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan LLP, for appellant McKenzie Check Advance of
Florida, LLC d/b/a National Cash Advance

Virginia B. Townes -- virginia.townes@akerman.com -- Lawrence
Rochefort -- lawrence.rochefort@akerman.com -- Carrie Ann Wozniak
-- carrieann.wozniak@akerman.com -- at Akerman LLP; Claudia
Callaway -- claudia.callaway@kattenlaw.com -- at Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, for appellant Brenda Lawson

Christopher Casper -- ccasper@jameshoyer.com -- at James Hoyer
Newcomer & Smiljanich; E. Clayton Yates -- at E. Clayton Yates,
P.A.; Theodore J. Leopold -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- Diana
L. Martin -- dmartin@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District panel
consists of Judges Jonathan D. Gerber, W. Matthew Stevenson and
Mark W. Klingensmith.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Moneygram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend against a securities class action
lawsuit.

On April 15, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of
New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of
its executive officers, Thomas H. Lee Partners, Goldman Sachs &
Co., Inc. and the underwriters of the secondary public offering of
the Company's common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014
Offering"). The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District
Council of New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class
consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference
therein, issued in connection with the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, due to allegedly false and
misleading statements in connection with the 2014 Offering and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 19, 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice
of removal to the federal district court of the District of
Delaware. On June 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand
the case back to Delaware State Court.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, related to this matter.


MYLAN N.V.: Motion to Dismiss Providence Suit Fully Briefed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that defendants' motion to dismiss the suit
by the City of Providence, Rhode Island is now fully briefed.

Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug modafinil and in a
lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs.
These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state
laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of
patent litigation with Cephalon relating to modafinil. Discovery
has closed.

On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs'
motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had
engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. On January 28,
2015, the District Court denied the defendants' summary judgment
motions based on factors identified in the Supreme Court's Actavis
decision.

On June 1, 2015, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed a petition for leave to appeal the certification
decision, which was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit on December 21, 2015.

On July 27, 2015, the District Court granted the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On October 9, 2015,
the Third Circuit granted defendants' petition for leave to appeal
the class certification decision.

On October 16, 2015, defendants filed a motion to stay the
liability trial, which had been set to begin on February 2, 2016,
with the District Court pending the appeal of the decision to
certify the direct purchaser class; this motion was denied on
December 17, 2015.

On December 17, 2015, the District Court approved the form and
manner of notice to the certified class of direct purchasers; the
notice was subsequently issued to the class. On December 21, 2015,
the defendants filed a motion to stay with the Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, which was granted on January 25, 2016; the
trial is now stayed and the case has been placed in suspense. The
appeal was fully briefed on April 28, 2016 and remains pending.

On March 24, 2015, Mylan reached a settlement in principle with
the putative indirect purchasers and on November 20, 2015, Mylan
entered into a settlement agreement with the putative indirect
purchasers. Plaintiffs have not yet moved for preliminary approval
of that settlement.

At March 31, 2016, the Company has accrued approximately $16.0
million related to this settlement.

On June 29, 2015, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed suit
against the same parties named as defendants in litigation pending
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including Mylan,
asserting state law claims based on the same underlying
allegations. All defendants, including Mylan, moved to dismiss the
suit on October 15, 2015. The motion is now fully briefed.

On July 10, 2015, the Louisiana Attorney General filed a petition
against Mylan and three other drug manufacturers asserting state
law claims based on the same underlying allegations as those made
in litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Mylan's declinatory exception of no personal jurisdiction and
peremptory exceptions of no cause of action, no right of action
and prescription are pending. A hearing on the exception is
scheduled for May 16, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the State of
Louisiana filed a motion to consolidate the pending action with
four other actions against other pharmaceutical manufacturers
concerning products not related to modafinil. Mylan is preparing a
response.


MYLAN N.V.: Dropped as Defendant in Amended Suit Over Minocycline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is no longer a defendant in
the consolidated amended complaint related to Minocycline.

Beginning in July 2013, Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited,
along with other drug manufacturers, were named as defendants in
civil lawsuits filed by a variety of plaintiffs in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
District of Arizona, and the District of Massachusetts. Those
lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs purport to represent
direct and indirect purchasers of branded or generic Solodyn(R),
and assert violations of federal and state laws, including
allegations in connection with separate settlements by Medicis
with each of the other defendants of patent litigation relating to
generic Solodyn(R).

Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed on September
12, 2014. Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited are no longer named
defendants in the consolidated amended complaint.


MYLAN N.V.: Bid to Dismiss Pioglitazone Buyers' Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the
direct purchaser class action related to Pioglitazone remains
pending.

Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug
manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect
purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
These actions allege violations of state and federal competition
laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent
litigation in 2010 relating to Actos and Actoplus Met(R).

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan
and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 10, 2014.

Two additional complaints were subsequently filed by plaintiffs
purporting to represent classes of direct purchasers of branded or
generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). On September 23, 2015, the
District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect
purchasers amended complaints with prejudice. The indirect
purchasers filed a notice of appeal on October 22, 2015; however
they have since abandoned and dismissed their appeal of the
District Court's dismissal of claims asserted against Mylan.

The putative direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint on
January 8, 2016. Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on
January 28, 2016 and the briefing has been completed and a
decision is pending.


MYLAN N.V.: Briefing on Shareholders Class Action Now Complete
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that briefing regarding three motions in the
shareholder class action lawsuits completed on January 15, 2016.

On June 11, 2015, City of Riviera Beach General Employees
Retirement System and Doris Arnold (collectively, the "Riviera
Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action complaint against
Mylan and directors of Mylan Inc. (the "Directors") in the
Washington County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas (the
"Pennsylvania Court"), on behalf of certain former shareholders of
Mylan Inc. The complaint alleged both breach of fiduciary duty by
the Directors and breach of contract by Mylan and the Directors,
relating to certain public disclosures made in connection with the
EPD Transaction and the organization of, and Call Option Agreement
with, the Foundation.

The Riviera Plaintiffs asked the Pennsylvania Court to: find that
the Directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Mylan and
the Directors breached the purported contract, rescind the vote of
Mylan Inc.'s former shareholders approving the EPD Transaction,
award compensatory damages and award Plaintiffs their costs
relating to the lawsuit. On June 22, 2015, Mylan and the Directors
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court"). The Riviera
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the District Court on
July 10, 2015, that included the same basic causes of action and
requested relief, dropped allegations against some of the
Directors named in the original complaint and asserted the breach
of contract claim not on behalf of a purported class of former
shareholders of Mylan Inc. but on behalf of a purported subclass
of such shareholders who held shares of Mylan continuously for a
specified period following consummation of the EPD Transaction.

On July 21, 2015, a second purported class action complaint
against the same defendants, asserting the same basic claims and
requesting the same basic relief on behalf of the same purported
class and subclass, was filed by a different plaintiff in the
District Court. On August 28, 2015, the District Court
consolidated the two actions, and, on September 4, 2015, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Consolidated Amended Complaint") against the same
defendants, asserting the same basic claims and requesting the
same basic relief on behalf of the same purported class and
subclass, but asserting the breach of contract claim against only
Mylan.

On September 30, 2015, two of the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a motion for partial summary judgment, on the breach
of contract claim against Mylan (the "Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment"). On October 23, 2015, the District Court approved the
voluntary dismissal of a third purported class action, commenced
on August 28, 2015 against Mylan and the Directors, alleging
federal securities and breach of contract claims against all
defendants and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
Directors, all arising out of the same basic alleged facts and
requesting the same basic relief on behalf of certain former
shareholders of Mylan Inc.

On November 25, 2015, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and Mylan filed an Opposition to
the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Motion to Deny
Summary Judgment.

On December 21, 2015, the District Court consolidated the action
with a fourth purported class action, commenced November 24, 2015
by, among others, the plaintiff in the third action, against the
same defendants, alleging only breach of contract arising out of
the same basic alleged facts, and requesting the same basic relief
on behalf of certain former shareholders of Mylan Inc.

In consolidating the actions, the District Court ordered, among
other things, that the Consolidated Amended Complaint would remain
the operative complaint in the consolidated action and that the
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss and Motion
to Deny Summary Judgment were not disturbed by the consolidation.
The briefing regarding the three motions was completed on January
15, 2016.

"We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intend to continue to defend against them vigorously," the Company
said.


MYLAN N.V.: Facing 7 Doxycycline Complaints in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that beginning in March 2016, seven putative
class action complaints have been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by
indirect purchasers against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and other pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleging conspiracies to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of certain
Doxycycline and Digoxin products and to allocate markets and
customers for those products. Mylan and its subsidiary intend to
deny liability and to defend these actions vigorously.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Merger Class Suit Remains Pending in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. continues to defend against a merger class
action lawsuit in Delaware, it said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

"On March 24, 2015, we completed the merger (the "Merger") of our
Completion & Production Services business with C&J Energy
Services, Inc. ("C&J Energy")," the Company said.

"On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with C&J Energy and its
board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class
action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members
of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J
Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff
sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for
approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was
completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger
rescinded.

"On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on
November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J
Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period
alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling
stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied
with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal
of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court"). On December 19, 2014,
the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's
judgment and vacated the order. This case remains pending.


NASDAQ OMX: Appeal Filed in "Rabin" Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephen Rabin, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the purported class action lawsuit captioned I. Rabin v. NASDAQ
OMX PHLX, et al., Case No. 2-15-cv-00551, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Rabin alleges that that options traders on the Nasdaq PHLX
exchange were damaged when market makers on that exchange
manipulated options in advance of dividend payments on underlying
stock and exchange traded funds for their personal benefit.  He
further alleges that -- with the assent of the Nasdaq defendants
-- the unidentified market maker defendants (plaintiff states an
intention to seek their identities from the Nasdaq defendants in
discovery) damaged other writers of call options by executing
among themselves prearranged manipulative matched options trades
on an underlying security immediately prior to the date for the
that security's dividend payment.  Based on these allegations, The
Plaintiffs laintiff asserts claims against all defendants for
securities fraud pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and for unjust
enrichment.

The appellate case is entitled I. Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX, et
al., Case No. 16-2511, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Phyllis M. Parker, Esq.
          Robin Switzenbaum, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3062
          E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
                  pparker@bm.net
                  rswitzenbaum@bm.net

               - and -

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
          David J. Stone, Esq.
          BRAGAR WEXLER EAGEL & SQUIRE
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
                  squire@bespc.com
                  stone@bespc.com

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          KAUFMAN COREN & RESS
          2001 Market Street
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 3900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8700
          E-mail: dgross@kcr-law.com

Defendants-Appellees NASDAQ OMX PHLX and NASDAQ OMX GROUP INC. are
represented by:

          Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq.
          Paul Lantieri, III, Esq.
          Lisa B. Swaminathan, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215)665-8500
          E-mail: kastenberg@ballardspahr.com
                  lantierip@ballardspahr.com
                  swaminathanl@ballardspahr.com

Defendants-Appellees Bedrock Trading Ltd., First Derivative
Traders LP and Largo Trading LP are represented by:

          David C. Bohan, Esq.
          Hannah O. Koesterer, Esq.
          Patrick M. Smith, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN
          525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 902-5566
          E-mail: david.bohan@kattenlaw.com
                  hannah.koesterer@kattenlaw.com
                  patrick.smith@kattenlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Bluefin Trading LLC is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Baumann, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
          Kenton E. Knickmeyer, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6406
          E-mail: jbaumann@thompsoncoburn.com
                  chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
                  kknickmeyer@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Engelmyer, Esq.
          Eric J. Schreiner, Esq.
          KLEINBARD BELL & BRECKER
          1650 Market Street, 46th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 568-2000
          E-mail: sengelmyer@kleinbard.com
                  eschreiner@kleinbard.com

Defendant-Appellee Consolidated Trading LLC is represented by:

          William A. Harvey, Esq.
          Paige M. Willan, Esq.
          KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG
          1835 Market Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 568-6060
          E-mail: wharvey@klehr.com
                  pwillan@klehr.com

               - and -

          Harry P. Lamberson, Esq.
          1024 North Western Avenue
          Lake Forest, IL 60045
          Telephone: (847) 295-5582

Defendants-Appellees Elm Trading LP and TSR Associates LLC are
represented by:

          Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
          K. Carrie Sarhangi, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS
          123 South Broad Street, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 772-7279
          E-mail: sliebesman@mmwr.com
                  csarhangi@mmwr.com

               - and -

          Rimma Tsvasman, Esq.
          Lee D. Unterman, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS
          437 Madison Avenue, 29th Flooor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-9500
          E-mail: lunterman@mmwr.com

Defendant-Appellee Hap Trading LLC is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Baumann, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6406
          E-mail: jbaumann@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          Hannah O. Koesterer, Esq.
          Patrick M. Smith, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN
          525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 09002-5351
          E-mail: hannah.koesterer@kattenlaw.com
                  patrick.smith@kattenlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Keystone Trading Partners LLC is represented
by:

          Steven B. Mirow, Esq.
          249 South 12th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-1301
          E-mail: sbmirow@verizon.net

Defendant-Appellee Summit Securities Group LLC is represented by:

          Richard M. Asche, Esq.
          LITMAN ASCHE LUPKIN & GIOIELLA
          45 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 809-4500

Defendant-Appellee Sumo Capital LLC is represented by:

          Malini Rao, Esq.
          DILWORTH PAXSON
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 575-7158
          E-mail: mrao@dilworthlaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine Wyder-Harshman, Esq.
          Zachary J. Ziliak, Esq.
          ZILIAK LAW
          141 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 4048
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 462-3431
          E-mail: elainewh@ziliak.com
                  zachary@ziliak.com

Defendants-Appellees Susquehanna International Group LLP, SIG
Holding LLC, Susquehanna Securities and Susquehanna Investment
Group are represented by:

          Michael D. LiPuma, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. LIPUMA
          325 Chestnut Street, Suite 1109
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 922-2126
          Facsimile: (215) 922-2128
          E-mail: mlipuma@lipumalaw.com

               - and -

          Kyle D. Rettberg, Esq.
          Phillip L. Stern, Esq.
          NEAL GERBER & EISENBERG
          Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 269-8056
          E-mail: krettberg@ngelaw.com
                  pstern@ngelaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Susquehanna International Group LLP is
represented by:

          Lisa B. Wershaw, Esq.
          CONRAD O'BRIEN GELLMAN & ROHN, P.C.
          1500 Market Street
          West Towers, Suite 3900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 864-8096
          E-mail: lwershaw@lipumalaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: College Football Players File 6 Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that former college football players hit the National Collegiate
Athletic Association with six federal class actions in San
Francisco May 17, claiming it ignored its duty to protect football
players from head trauma despite knowing about the dangers for
decades.

Suits in Sacramento, Indianapolis and Orlando also take aim at the
Southeastern Conference. Vanderbilt University is a defendant to
the Orlando case. In Chicago, the case takes aim at Penn State and
the Big Ten. A case in Salt Lake City takes aim at the Western
Athletic Conference.

Daniel Lee Cook, who played football for the University of Oregon
from 1971 to 1973, filed his federal class action in San Francisco
against the NCAA and the Pacific-12 Conference.

"For decades, defendants Pac-12 and the NCAA, in addition to the
University of Oregon, knew about the debilitating long-term
dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-
concussive injuries (referred to as 'traumatic brain injuries' or
'TBIs') that resulted from playing college football, but actively
concealed this information to protect the very profitable business
of 'amateur' college football," Cook says in his 29-page
complaint.

Scientists began studying head injuries in football as early as
the 1930s, issuing recommendations that players who suffer from
concussions should be removed from play.

However, it wasn't until 2010 that the NCAA -- "under mounting
public pressure" -- enacted new policies requiring colleges to
have a concussion management plan in place, Cook claims.

Cook is suing on behalf of all University of Oregon students who
played varsity football between 1964 and 2010.

University of Oregon spokesman Tobin Klinger said the university
had not yet reviewed the complaint and could not comment. The
university is not named as a defendant, but is accused of failing
to protect its football players in the content of the complaint.

The NCAA's 2010 policy mandates that any player showing signs of a
concussion be removed from games and practice until the athlete is
cleared by a medical professional.

However, Cook argues the new policy still falls short because it
requires that players themselves be responsible for reporting
their injuries.

"Due to the very nature of concussions, student athletes suffering
concussive injuries are in no position to police themselves or to
give informed consent about whether to continue playing," Cook
says in the complaint.

During his college football career, Cook suffered multiple
concussions and was "knocked out" 15 to 30 times, especially
during his freshman year, he says.

Despite earning his mater's degree and working as a middle school
teacher for 30 years, Cook struggled with the effects of head
injuries he suffered on the field until his worsening symptoms
became apparent to his employers and family.

He could no longer function as a teacher. He needed friends and
family to take care of him, and he was diagnosed with dementia,
according to his lawsuit.

The lawsuit accuses the NCAA and Pacific-12 of negligence,
fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and also includes three
breach of contract claims.

Cook seeks class certification, damages and injunctive or
declaratory relief to protect the interests of the proposed class.

He is represented by Todd Logan of Edelson PC in San Francisco.

The NCAA and Pacific-12 did not immediately respond to emails and
phone calls seeking comment on May 17.

In 2013, two former college football players also filed federal
class actions against the NCAA, seeking damages for negligence and
court-supervised medical monitoring.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Impending Dismissal Also Requires Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, denied defendant-appellant's contentions in the case
CHRISTOPHER VASQUEZ, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATIONAL
SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, MARK GOLDWASSER,
Defendant, 585, 155613/14 (N.Y. App. Div.)

On May 4, 2015, Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich granted
plaintiff's motion to give notice of the impending dismissal of
the complaint to putative class members pursuant to CPLR 908.

Defendant-appellant National Securities Corporation raises policy
arguments in support of its position.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department denied defendant-appellant's contentions.

A copy of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York,
First Department order dated May 12, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/U0SEMZfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel J. Buzzetta -- dbuzzetta@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker &
Hostetler LLP, for appellant

James Emmet Murphy -- jmurphy@vandallp.com - at Virginia &
Ambinder, LLP, for respondent

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department panel consists of Presiding Justice Peter Tom and
Justices David Friedman, David B. Saxe and Rosalyn H. Richter.


NEC TOKIN: Settles Capacitors Antitrust Suit for $37.25-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, that NEC TOKIN
Corporation ("NEC TOKIN"), a joint venture between KEMET
Electronics Corporation and NEC Corporation, reached a preliminary
settlement in two antitrust suits pending in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California as In re:
Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (the "Class
Action Suits"). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, in
consideration of the release of NEC TOKIN and its subsidiaries
(including NEC TOKIN America, Inc.) from claims asserted in the
Class Action Suits, NEC TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.25 million
to a settlement class of direct purchasers of capacitors and a
settlement class of indirect purchasers of capacitors.

Payments will be made in installments, with the initial
installment being due on May 20, 2016, and subsequent payments on
May 15, 2017, May 15, 2018, May 15, 2019, and December 31, 2019.
In addition, NEC TOKIN has agreed to provide certain cooperative
assistance to the Class Action Suit plaintiffs during the pendency
of the Class Action Suits. NEC TOKIN and the Class Action Suit
plaintiffs are working to finalize the settlement in a definitive
settlement agreement, the terms of which are subject to court
approval.

NEC TOKIN, a Japanese corporation, is a joint venture in which a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, KEMET Electronics
Corporation, owns a 34% equity interest and 51% voting ownership
interest, and NEC Corporation (together with a subsidiary thereof)
owns a 66% equity interest and 49% voting ownership interest. The
settlement is reflected as an expense of approximately $12.7
million that is included in the reported loss of $11.6 million
"Equity income (loss) from NEC TOKIN" line of the Company's
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the fiscal quarter ending
March 31, 2016.


NEW YORK: Faces "Levin" Suit Over Water Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the water supply for several of New York City's suburbs has not
meet federal and state environmental standards since 2012 and
could contain potentially deadly bacteria, a man bringing a
federal class action claims in Manhattan.

"We don't a repeat of Flint, Michigan," attorney Steven Blau said
in an interview May 17. "If people make some noise they might get
some action, but if they don't know about it they can't make
noise."

Blau represents Jeffrey Levin, of Scarsdale, who says several
Westchester County municipalities violated a 2006 rule by the
Environmental Protection Agency that requires the testing and
treatment of public water systems to prevent contamination by
cryptosporidium.

Filed May 16, in Manhattan, the federal complaint also alleges
that the water district misled customers by failing to disclose
the full terms of a 2015 consent order with the EPA over its
failure to meet federal drinking water standards.

Westchester's Water District No. 1, which was created in 1964,
services White Plains, Yonkers, Mount Vernon and Scarsdale. The
district uses water from the Kensico Reservoir, which is
unfiltered and open to the atmosphere.

Under the EPA's 2006 rule, public water systems were required to
install additional testing and treatment protocols by 2012.

Westchester's failure to meet that deadline resulted in a lawsuit
three years ago by the EPA.

Though the county reached a consent decree in September 2015,
committing to $1 million in fines, Levin says it has failed to
develop interim testing and treatment measures that the settlement
requires.

The settlement also requires Westchester to built two new
treatment systems by 2018.

This past January, Scarsdale residents and their neighbors to the
north in White Plains received letters informing them that for a
two- to three-month window water could contain high levels of the
dangerous microbial pathogen cryptosporidium.

Those letters say ongoing testing "has not detected any
cryptosporidium exceedance" in the municipalities' drinking water,
but they advise the elderly, those with children, and those with
"severely compromised immune systems" to seek medical advice
before drinking public water.

Levin's attorney Blau, of Huntington, N.Y., noted that Westchester
officials notified residents only when they were legally required
to under the 2015 consent order.

"If they didn't have that judgment in place, they would be hiding
that information from people," Blay said.

A spokeswoman for Westchester County has not returned an email
seeking comment.

The class seeks damages plus an injunction that keeps Westchester
County's District No. 1 water supplier from charging residents in
the four affected municipalities full price for drinking water
until the water district complies with the federal safety rule.

Cryptosporidium, which is transmitted through surface water and is
resistant to chlorination, can lead to cryptosporidiosis. The
disease causes diarrhea, nausea and even death among those with
weakened immune systems, and it is considered untreatable. Some
research suggests the pathogen can cause stunted growth among
children.

Cryptosporidium outbreaks have been reported in poorer, rural
areas. An outbreak of cryptosporidiosis that hit Milwaukee in 1993
has been called one of the largest waterborne-disease outbreaks in
the United States. More than 400,000 residents fell ill with the
disease's symptoms, and more than 100 deaths were attributed to
the outbreak.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Lisiecki" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the classes described in
the amended complaint in the lawsuit styled MICHELLE LISIECKI AND
DIANE LIEBL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NORTHLAND GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00464-PP (E.D.
Wisc.).  They also ask the Court both to stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


OCWEN LOAN: Abraham, Coves May Amend Portion of Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John R. Padova of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint in the case LISA A.
ABRAHAM, LISA CAVE, SCOTT CAVE, LEE ANN KAMINSKI, and MARK E.
KAMINSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 14-4977 (E.D. Pa.)

On July 20, 2011, Lisa and Scott Cave (Caves) filed their first
class action complaint in the related case, Cave v. Saxon Mortgage
Servs., Inc., Civ. A. No. 11-04586 (Cave I). The Caves' first
putative class claims addressing Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC's
(Ocwen) balloon disclosures were asserted in the first amended
class action complaint filed in Cave I on February 14, 2013. The
Caves asserted individual and putative class claims under the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
73 P.S. Section 201-2(xxi) (UTPCPL) and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (FDCPA).

Pursuant to a stipulation and order entered in Cave I, on August
25, 2014, the Caves and plaintiff Lisa A. Abraham filed a
consolidated class action complaint (CAC) that consolidated the
Caves' balloon-disclosure related claims with a virtually
identical action filed by Abraham on March 25, 2014. In the CAC,
the Caves re-asserted their UTPCPL and FDCPA claims and Abraham
asserted a single UTPCPL claim against Ocwen.

Plaintiffs' claims were based on the alleged theory that the
plaintiffs' loan modification agreements contained balloon
disclosures that did not disclose the estimated dollar amount of
the balloon payment due at the maturity date of plaintiffs' loans
or how the balloon payment was calculated, and that these alleged
failures were unfair, deceptive, and/or unconscionable.

Ocwen filed a motion to dismiss in part, which was granted by the
court, which eliminated a portion of plaintiffs' FDCPA claim.

On February 25, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first Amended class
Aation complaint (FAC), the filing of which was unopposed by
Ocwen.  The FAC reasserted the same individual and putative class
claims on behalf of the Caves and Abraham.  The FAC also added two
new named plaintiffs, Lee Ann Kaminski and Mark E. Kaminski, who
asserted a new cause of action against Ocwen under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-1, et seq. (NJCFA), and
who sought to represent a new proposed putative class of New
Jersey homeowners.

Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint
(SAC). Plaintiffs assert that the purpose of the amendment is to
update the pleading to reflect information that they obtained in
class certification-related discovery, to add a claim for breach
of contract based upon that newly discovered evidence, and to
propose a new nationwide class of borrowers to pursue the new
breach of contract claim.

Judge Padova granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' leave
to amend their complaint only to the extent that they seek to
supplement the allegations underpinning the UTPCPL claim (Count I)
and the NJCFA claim (Count III). Judge Padova denied leave to
amend to add the proposed breach of contract claim because the
proposed claim is futile. Judge Padova also denied leave to amend
to add a nation-wide class to pursue the futile breach of contract
claim.

A copy of Judge Padova's memorandum dated May 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/xmAFetfrom Leagle.com.

LISA A. ABRAHAM, LISA CAVE, SCOTT CAVE,  Plaintiffs, represented
by Eric Lechtzin -- elechtzin@bm.net -- Todd S. Collins --
tcollins@bm.net -- at BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.; Ann Miller -- at
Law Office of Ann Miller

LEE ANN KAMINSKI and MARK E. KAMINSKI, Plaintiffs, Eric Lechtzin
-- elechtzin@bm.net -- at BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian M.
Forbes -- brian.m.forbes@klgates.com -- David R. Fine --
david.fine@klgates.com -- R. Bruce Allensworth --
bruce.allensworth@klgates.com -- Robert Sparkes, III --
robert.sparkes@klgates.com -- at K & L GATES LLP


OHIO: Schools Neglect Hispanic Students, Class Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that an Ohio school district doesn't give students with low
English skills a meaningful education, and its superintendent said
they only need to know "the difference between the words mop and
broom," an immigrant advocacy group says.

The Ohio Immigrant Worker Project (OIWP) claims in a class-action
lawsuit filed May 16, in Northern Ohio Federal Court that Dover
City Schools intentionally discriminates against immigrant
students with limited English skills.

Almost all the limited English proficiency students in Dover, a
city 80 miles south of Cleveland, are Hispanic, according to the
lawsuit.

"Defendants have intentionally both failed to ensure that [limited
English proficient, or LEP] immigrant children have received or
are receiving the appropriate services and supports to learn
English and substantive academic content and segregated them
physically during both regular class hours and during school lunch
periods," the complaint states.

During the 2013-2014 school year, LEP high school students were
taught by a teacher who did not speak Spanish, OIWP says. The
teacher was allegedly not licensed to teach English as a Second
Language (ESL), and did not teach a specific LEP curriculum.

LEP students were also physically separated from other students,
sent to a basement classroom, and not permitted to mingle with
white students during lunch period, according to the complaint.

During the 2014-2015 school year, LEP students were allegedly
bussed to spend half their day at a site that includes a juvenile
detention facility, although LEP students were not in the locked-
down area.

Only elective subjects were taught to LEP students, both at Dover
schools and offsite, and therefore none of the credits qualified
towards core academic graduation requirements, according to OIWP.
Thus, even with full-time attendance, LEP students cannot graduate
high school, the group says.

"Many DCS staff are indifferent or even hostile to LEP students
enrolled and attending DCS schools," the complaint states. "A good
example of this indifference or hostility is when defendant
[Carla] Birney, then the Dover High School principal, stated in a
meeting regarding LEP issues that the LEP immigrant children
enrolled in Dover Schools: 'These children do not need to know a
lot of English, only the difference between the words 'mop' and
'broom.''"

Birney now serves as superintendent for Dover City Schools,
according to the lawsuit.

"This statement by a major administrator made in the presence of
and directed to DCS staff, communicated the belief that the LEP
students are not intelligent, that the LEP students need only be
educated or trained to a minimal level to work menial jobs and
that the LEP immigrant students are not worthy of the same
educational opportunities as the white DCS students," the
complaint states.

OIWP says Dover's neglect of LEP students increases their chance
of delinquency, by making it nearly impossible for them to get an
education.

The group seeks an injunction requiring Dover City Schools to hire
qualified teachers licensed to teach ESL, and to inform parents
about their child's level of English proficiency, the standards
for the child to be moved out of the LEP program, and the expected
rate of graduation from high school under the program.

OIWP is represented by Mark Heller with Advocates for Basic Legal
Equality in Toledo, Ohio.

Dover City Schools did not immediately respond to a request for
comment made May 17, afternoon.


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Appeals Court Issues Writ of Mandate
-------------------------------------------------------
Justice Raymond J. Ikola of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division Three, granted petitioner's petition for
a writ of mandate in the case TALEGA VILLAGE CENTER COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,
Respondent; STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION et al., Real Parties in
Interest, No. G051950 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Talega Village Center is a residential development consisting of
302 residential units, together with association property and
common areas, located in San Clemente. Talega Village Center was
built and sold in 2003-2005.

Petitioner Talega Village Center Community Association (HOA) is
the governing body for the development.

Real Party in Interest Standard Pacific Corporation (Standard
Pacific) was the developer and declarant of the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R). Standard Pacific recorded the
CC&Rs in 2003 at a time when it controlled the homeowner's
association entirely.

Real Party in Interest Talega Associates, LLC, is an entity
related to Standard Pacific that was involved in the development.

In September 2013 the HOA filed its first amended complaint
against defendants and alleges violation of SB800 construction
standards, strict liability (developer), negligence, strict
liability (product). The HOA brought the action on its own behalf
and on behalf of all persons having an ownership interest in a
condominium unit at the project. The complaint alleges a litany of
defects in the construction of the development.

In response, defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration,
seeking to enforce the arbitration provisions of the CC&Rs, and in
particular the Home Builder's Limited Warranty, which is
administered by the Professional Warranty Service Corporation.
The court granted the petition to compel arbitration, but only
orders the litigation be stayed and orders the parties to comply
with the arbitration provisions in Talega Village Center Community
Association's CC&Rs." The HOA subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration and clarification of the court's order but was
denied.
The court's order was stayed for nearly one year while the parties
went to mediation. Mediation apparently failed, and shortly after
the stay was lifted, the HOA filed the present writ of mandate.
HOA challenges the enforcement of an arbitration provision
contained in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
of a residential development.

The Court of Appeals of California issued an order to show cause
and stayed the trial court order.

Justice Ikola granted petitioner's petition for a writ of mandate,
and a peremptory writ of mandate is issued directing the trial
court to vacate its March 5, 2004 order. HOA's motion for judicial
notice is denied. The defendants' motion to strike the
declarations of David M. Peters and Kyle E. Larkin is granted, as
the objectionable material was not presented to the trial court
and is unnecessary to resolve the writ petition. Amicus Curiae
PWC's requests for judicial notice are denied.

A copy of Justice Ikola's opinion dated May 18, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/Q1Xs18from Leagel.com.

For Petitioner:

     David M. Peters, Esq.
     Kennan A. Parker, Esq.
     Kyle E. Lakin, Esq.
     Zachary R. Smith, Esq.
     Peters & Freedman
     191 Calle Magdalena #220
     Encinitas, CA 92024
     Telephone: 760-436-3441

No appearance for Respondent

Brian C. Plante -- Nicole E. Bartz -- nbartz@greenhall.com --
Robert L. Green -- rlgreen@greenhall.com -- at Green & Hall, for
Real Parties in Interest

Gemmill, Baldridge & Yguico and Carlos V. Yguico for Professional
Warranty Service Corporation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real
Parties in Interest

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Three panel consists of Presiding Justice Kathleen E. O'Leary and
Justices Raymond J. Ikola and Richard M. Aronson.


OREGON, USA: Appeal Filed in Suit Over Wrongful Conduct vs. Gov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit titled M. S., et al. v. Kate Brown, et al., Case No. 6:15-
cv-02069-AA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Eugene.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all Oregon residents, who have
lived in the State for more than one year and are denied driving
privileges solely because they are unable to prove legal presence
in the United States.

Kate Brown is the Governor of the State of Oregon.  Governor
Brown's Constitutional duties include ensuring faithful execution
of State laws, including initiatives and referenda such as Measure
88.

The appellate case is captioned as M. S., et al. v. Kate Brown, et
al., Case No. 16-35431, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          David Henretty, Esq.
          OREGON LAW CENTER
          522 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 812
          Portland, OR 97204
          Facsimile: (503) 295-0676
          Telephone: (503) 473-8311
          E-mail: dhenretty@oregonlawcenter.org

Defendant-Appellee Kate Brown is represented by:

          Sarah K. Weston, Esq.
          OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1515 Southwest 5th Avenue
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (971) 673-5027
          E-mail: sarah.weston@doj.state.or.us


REAL TIME: Initial Approval of "Tannlund" Suit Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michelle Lee Tannlund filed with the Court an unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of revised class action settlement
in the lawsuit entitled Michelle Lee Tannlund, et al. v. Real Time
Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05149 (N.D. Ill.).

Ms. Tannlund also moves for an order (1) preliminarily approving
the agreement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
preliminarily approving the form, manner, and content of the
publication notice and claim form; (3) setting the date and time
for a final approval hearing for no earlier than 135 days from the
date preliminary approval is granted; (4) provisionally certifying
the class for settlement purposes only; (5) provisionally
appointing Plaintiff as class representative; and (6)
provisionally appointing Mark Ankcorn and Ankcorn Law Firm, PC, as
class counsel.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant have entered into a written
Revised Settlement Agreement and Release, which settles the
dispute on a class-wide basis relating to calls made to cellular
telephones using an automatic dialer and a prerecorded or
artificial voice allegedly in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Revised Agreement is substantially different from the
settlement earlier proposed in the Action because it now
contemplates a non-reversionary common fund of $1.3 million with
costs of notice and administration paid by the Defendant
separately outside the fund, with approximately 345,000 persons
eligible to make a claim by submitting a simple form stating that
they received unconsented calls.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7H5GJ300

Plaintiff Michelle Lee Tannlund is represented by:

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Circle Click and CTNY File Appeal in 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Circle Click Media, LLC, and CTNY Insurance Group, LLC,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in their purported class
action lawsuit titled Circle Click Media, LLC, et al. v. Regus
Management Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04000-EMC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

Regus is in the business of leasing fully equipped commercial
office space using an Office Service Agreement.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the actual monthly payment amount (as stated in
Regus's monthly invoices) exceed the monthly amount stated on the
OSA because Regus charges mandatory fees that are not adequately
disclosed until after the lease is signed. In particular, the
Plaintiffs contend that Regus failed to adequately disclose three
required service fees: (1) a mandatory $30 per month, per-person
"Kitchen Amenities Fee"; (2) an "Office Restoration Service" fee
for normal wear and tear; and (3) a "Business Continuity Service"
fee for forwarding mail and phone calls after a customer vacates
the office.  The Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of
California Business & Professions Code and unjust enrichment.

The appellate case is styled Circle Click Media, LLC, et al. v.
Regus Management Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-80071, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Ali Ari Aalaei, Esq.
          ARI LAW, P.C.
          90 New Montgomery St., Suite 905
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 357-3600

               - and -

          S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 901-0500
          E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com

Defendants-Respondents Regus Management Group, LLC, Regus Business
Centre, LLC, Regus, PLC, and HQ Global Workplaces, LLC, are
represented by:

          Stephanie A. Blazewicz, Esq.
          Meryl Macklin, Esq.
          K. Lee Marshall, Esq.
          Tracy M. Talbot, Esq.
          Daniel T. Rockey, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          560 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 375-3400
          E-mail: stephanie.blazewicz@bryancave.com
                  meryl.macklin@bryancave.com
                  klmarshall@bryancave.com
                  tracy.talbot@bryancave.com
                  daniel.rockey@bryancave.com


RAYONIER ADVANCED: M.D. Fla. Court Tossed Stockholder Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that a court
granted the Company's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs'
stockholder complaint without prejudice.

On May 4, 2015 the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System vs. Rayonier
Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G. Boynton, Frank A. Ruperto and
Benson K. Woo.  An amended consolidated complaint was filed on
September 11, 2015.  The case is a purported class action alleging
securities laws violations, primarily related to claims the
Company failed to record adequate environmental liabilities
related to disposed operations which, the plaintiffs allege led to
a decrease in the Company's stock price between June 30, 2014 and
January 28, 2015.  The allegations are couched as violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and as
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

On September 16, 2015, the case against Mr. Ruperto was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint
in its entirety and, at a hearing on April 20, 2016, the court
granted the Company's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint without prejudice. The court also ruled that the
plaintiffs could attempt to cure the deficiencies that caused the
court to grant the Company's motion to dismiss, if they are able
to do so, by filing a second amended consolidated complaint by a
deadline set by the court.

The Company strongly believes the plaintiffs' allegations to be
baseless and without merit and, if the plaintiffs elect to file a
second amended consolidated complaint, the Company will continue
to vigorously defend this action.


RUCKUS WIRELESS: Defending Merger Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ruckus Wireless, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is facing
shareholder class action related to a merger agreement.

On April 3, 2016, Ruckus entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent" or "Brocade"), and
Stallion Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Offeror" or "Merger Sub").

Following the announcement that Ruckus had entered into the Merger
Agreement with Brocade and the Offeror on April 3, 2016, two
putative stockholder class action complaints challenging the Offer
and the Merger were filed on behalf of purported Ruckus
stockholders in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara. The first complaint was filed on April 12, 2016 and is
captioned: Macuire v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al., Case
No.16CV293800 (referred to as the "Macuire complaint").  On April
19, 2016, another putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed and is captioned: Jaljouli v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 16CV294075 (referred to as the "Jaljouli complaint").

Both the Macuire complaint and the Jaljouli complaint contain
similar allegations and name Ruckus, members of the Ruckus board
of directors, Brocade and the Offeror as defendants. In general,
the complaints allege that the members of the Ruckus board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Ruckus stockholders
by doing one or more of the following: (i) agreeing to unfair and
inadequate transaction consideration for the Ruckus shares, (ii)
accepting unreasonable deal protection measures in the merger
agreement that dissuade other potential bidders from making
competing offers, (iii) failing to properly value Ruckus and take
steps to maximize the sale value of Ruckus, and (iv) engaging in
self-dealing.

The two complaints also allege that one or more of Ruckus, Brocade
and the Offeror aided and abetted the members of the Ruckus board
of directors in breaching their fiduciary duties to Ruckus
stockholders.

The plaintiffs have requested certification as a class, rescission
and invalidation of the Merger Agreement or related agreements,
injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, an award of
the costs and disbursements of the action (including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees), and other equitable relief that the
court may deem just and proper.

The lawsuits are in their early stages and it is not possible to
determine the potential outcome of the lawsuits or to make an
estimate of probable losses, if any, at this time. The defendants
believe that the lawsuits are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against all allegations that have been asserted.

Ruckus Wireless, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Ruckus") is a
global supplier of advanced Wi-Fi solutions.


SEAWORLD: San Diego Judge Drops "Hall" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Diego dismissed a class action against
SeaWorld by former parkgoers who claimed that had they known the
theme park mistreated its orcas they would have never purchased
tickets.

On May 13, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo found the
plaintiffs failed to address the problems identified this past
December when Bencivengo granted them leave to amend their
complaint.

The consolidated complaint began as three separate class actions
brought against SeaWorld by consumers who bought tickets to attend
the company's parks in San Diego, San Antonio and Orlando. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated 91-page complaint in August 2015
with five named plaintiffs.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed they would have not
purchased tickets to attend the theme parks had they known what
they know now about the treatment and condition of the killer
whales held in captivity at the parks. SeaWorld misled and
deceived the plaintiffs and other consumers about its treatment of
the whales, in violation of consumer statutes in California, Texas
and Florida, the plaintiffs claimed.

SeaWorld's massive marketing campaign masked "the ugly truth about
the unhealthy and despairing lives of these whales," which the
plaintiffs claimed "die many years before they would in the wild."

In her December dismissal with leave to amend, Bencivengo found
the San Diego class claims were all fraud claims and needed to be
pleaded as such. But Bencivengo found the plaintiffs lacked
standing to bring any fraud claims because "the complaint does not
allege that any of the named plaintiffs saw and relied on
SeaWorld's statements about its treatment of whales when
purchasing their tickets."

Bencivengo also found "most of the alleged statements were made
after plaintiffs purchased their tickets, meaning plaintiffs could
not have relied on them when making their purchase." Since most of
plaintiffs' claims are based on alleged fraud, they are subject to
the heightened pleading standard.

Pointing out additional flaws with the plaintiffs' amended
complaint, Bencivengo called their claims "minimal and
superficial" in her latest 12-page order dismissing the case in
its entirety.

"It appears that plaintiffs have treated this court's grant of
leave to file the second amended complaint more as an opportunity
to seek reconsideration of the court's prior dismissal order than
as a chance to remedy the pleading deficiencies identified by the
court in that order," Bencivengo wrote.

One "deficiency" Bencivengo addressed in her previous order was
that the plaintiffs' claims lacked any reference to any
advertising or statements made by SeaWorld prior to purchasing
their tickets. In their second attempt, plaintiffs merely noted
they had visited SeaWorld and attended the Shamu show in previous
visits to the park and that during the shows SeaWorld did not
disclose the "true facts" about the health and conditions of the
orcas in their care.

SeaWorld did not have a duty to disclose information about the
health or condition of the whales and claiming the company failed
to disclose that information to park attendees does not hold up,
Bencivengo wrote in her dismissal.

By also failing to address the specifics of which plaintiffs
actually saw false statements or omissions made by SeaWorld and
when they saw them, the plaintiffs are unable to prove they relied
on the statements before purchasing their tickets, Bencivengo
said.

When Bencivengo found plaintiffs could assert an omission claim if
they proved that omission "is directly contrary to a
representation actually made by the defendant," they dropped the
ball and "made no effort to comply with this limitation" --
instead re-arguing that SeaWorld did have a general duty to
disclose the conditions of the whales, which Bencivengo noted she
had already dismissed in her December judgment.

The consolidated class only spent a small portion of their brief
on the claims for the San Antonio class and Orlando class, and
while they attempted to beef up their claims in their second
amended complaint, Bencivengo found they still fell short and
asserted "no new substantive factual allegations unique to these
claims."

SeaWorld San Diego communications director Dave Koontz said the
dismissal is a big win for SeaWorld.

"This significant win for SeaWorld underscores that we have never
misled consumers about our orcas or their lives at SeaWorld. After
multiple tries, these plaintiffs could not establish their false
allegations. And while it is possible they may attempt to appeal,
we are confident that courts will continue to see through these
baseless claims," Koontz said.

The class members are represented by Shayne Stevenson, Steve
Berman, Lee Gordon and Elaine Byszewski of Hagens Berman in
Seattle, who did not return phone and email requests for comment.

The case captioned, HOLLY HALL et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEA WORLD
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant., Case No.: 3:15-CV-660-CAB-
RBB (S.D. Cal.).


SOCIAL SECURITY: Plaintiffs in "Heard" Class Suit Filed Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tina Heard, Pearline Snow and Carolyn Graham,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the Tina Heard, et al. v. SSA, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00230-RBW, in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.

The appellate case is captioned as Tina Heard, et al. v. SSA, et
al., Case No. 16-5125, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Jonathan Heuer Levy, Esq.
          LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          1331 H Street, NW, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 628-1161

Defendants-Appellees Social Security Administration and United
States Department of the Treasury are represented by:

          DOJ APPELLATE COUNSEL
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

Defendant-Appellee District of Columbia is represented by:

          Loren L. AliKhan, Esq.
          DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          441 4th Street, NW
          One Judiciary Square, Sixth Floor
          Washington, DC 20001-2714
          Telephone: (202) 727-3400
          E-mail: loren.alikhan@dc.gov


SOLARCITY CORP: Cal. Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Justice James A. McIntyre of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the order of the trial
court denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the case
DANIEL ALTMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOLARCITY CORPORATION,
Defendant and Appellant, No. D067582 (Cal. Ct. App.)

In April 2013, Daniel Altman began working for SolarCity
Corporation as a field energy advisor. As a condition of his
employment, he signed an At-Will Employment, Confidential
Information, Invention Assignment, and Arbitration Agreement.

In 2014, Altman brought a putative class action against SolarCity
alleging it misclassified him and other field energy advisors as
exempt employees and thus failed to pay them overtime wages and
provide them with meal and rest breaks. Altman pursued causes of
action on behalf of himself and the putative class for unfair
competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et
seq., failure to pay overtime compensation, and failure to provide
itemized wage statements. Altman also pursued representative
relief under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab.
Code, sECTION 2698 et seq.), which was predicated on SolarCity's
alleged Labor Code violations.

Based on the Arbitration Agreement, SolarCity moved to compel
arbitration of Altman's individual claims, dismiss the class
claims, and stay the PAGA claim until resolution of the individual
claims and Altman's status as an "aggrieved employee" under the
PAGA. The trial court denied SolarCity's motion, finding the PAGA
waiver in the Arbitration Agreement was unenforceable and could
not be severed from the remainder of the agreement.

The trial court concluded the entire Arbitration Agreement was
unenforceable.

SolarCity appealed, contending the trial court erroneously
invalidated the arbitration agreement by construing it as barring
PAGA claims and finding the PAGA waiver was not severable from the
rest of the agreement. SolarCity also argues the court should
enforce Altman's agreement to arbitrate his individual claims and
his status as an "aggrieved employee" because arbitration of these
matters is authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act, arbitration
of whether Altman was an "aggrieved employee" is proper because it
is relevant to whether he has standing to sue as a PAGA
representative, and the PAGA does not preclude arbitration of
"aggrieved employee" status. Lastly, SolarCity contends the trial
court should have stayed the litigation of Altman's class and
representative claims pending resolution of the matters he agreed
to arbitrate.

A copy of Justice McIntyre's opinion dated May 13, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/2HCVwWfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas M. Peterson -- thomas.peterson@morganlewis.com -- Deborah
E. Quick -- deborah.quick@morganlewis.com -- Melinda S. Riechert -
- melinda.riechert@morganlewis.com -- Michael D. Schlemmer --
michael.schlemmer@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis & Bockius,
for Defendant and Appellant

Norman B. Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawlj.com -- Kyle R. Nordrehaug
-- kyle@bamlawca.com -- at Blumenthal, Nordrehaugh & Bhowmik, for
Plaintiff and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
panel consists of Presiding Justice Judith McConnell and Justices
James A. McIntyre and Terry B. O'Rourke


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Zachariah Pinkney Moves for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court to certify the class described in
the amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned ZACHARIAH PINKNEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, LP, Case No. 2:16-cv-00532-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dkoPJY3m

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPEEDWAY LLC: Judge Dismisses "Timoneri" ADA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division granted defendant's motion to dismiss in
the case Mark Timoneri, Plaintiff, v. Speedway, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:15CV2423 (N.D. Ohio)

Mark Timoneri is a quadriplegic and depends on a wheelchair for
mobility. He alleges that he frequently visits defendant Speedway
LLC's (Speedway) facility located at 29201 Euclid Avenue in
Wickliffe, because it is close to his home. Timoneri alleges that
he experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk due to faded
markings in a purportedly accessible parking space, excessive
slopes on the landing at the top of a curb ramp, and the lack of
an access aisle adjacent to a purportedly accessible space.

Plaintiff asserts that Speedway's Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliance policies are inadequate in both their conception
and implementation and are not reasonably calculated to make their
facilities fully accessible to and independently usable by
individuals with mobility disabilities. He claims that the alleged
access barriers at Speedway's facilities violate Title III of the
ADA, which requires that places of public accommodation and
commercial facilities be readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities.

He brought the suit as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2), seeking a declaratory judgment that Speedway is in
violation of Title III and a permanent injunction directing
Speedway to take all necessary steps to bring its facilities into
compliance with the ADA and to change its policies so that
discriminatory barriers do not develop or recur at Speedway's
stores in the future.

On plaintiff's behalf, investigators examined 18 other locations
owned or operated by Speedway and allegedly found a variety of ADA
violations. On plaintiff's behalf, investigators examined 18 other
locations owned or operated by Speedway and allegedly found a
variety of ADA violations.

Speedway filed a motion to dismiss and argues that plaintiff lacks
standing to pursue a claim under Title III regarding its locations
that plaintiff has not visited and for which he does not allege
any intent to visit. It also asks the Court to dismiss the class
allegations because plaintiff has failed to plead a viable class.

Judge Gaughan granted defendant's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Gaughan memorandum of opinion and order dated May
12, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/Ssh5eUfrom Leagle.com.

Mark Timoneri, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Constance A. Powall, Esq.
     Louis J. Licata, Esq.
     Licata & Associates
     4500 Rockside Suite 420
     Independence, OH 44131
     Telephone: 216-573-6000

Plaintiff is also represented by:

     Lisa E. Roth, Esq.
     Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela
     1133 Penn Ave.
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Telephone: 412-322-9243
     Facsimile: 412-231-0246
     Email: lroth@carlsonlynch.com
            sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com

Speedway, LLC, Defendant, represented by April M. Byrd --
abyrd@shb.com -- Joseph H. Blum -- jblum@shb.com -- at Shook,
Hardy & Bacon; Shannon K. Patton -- spatton@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Files Appeal in 8th Cir. in Suit vs. Pudlowski
--------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis Rams LLC, The St. Louis Rams Partnership and ITB
Football Company, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the purported class action lawsuit styled Pudlowski, et al. v.
The St. Louis Rams, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00189-RLW, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St.
Louis.

The appellate case is captioned as The St. Louis Rams LLC, et al.
v. James Pudlowski, et al., Case No. 16-8009, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Brian Amaral, writing for Law360, reported on May 11 that a class
action filed by a group of disgruntled fans of the former St.
Louis Rams football team was punted back to Missouri state court
after a federal judge found that despite the NFL team's "bald
assertion" that owner Stan Kroenke was a citizen of Wyoming, he
actually lived in Missouri.

Respondents James Pudlowski, Louis C. Cross, III, Gail Henry and
Steven Henry are represented by:

          Steven J. Stolze, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 N. Tucker, Suite 801
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          E-mail: sstolze@allfela.com

Petitioners The St. Louis Rams LLC, The St. Louis Rams Partnership
and ITB Football Company, LLC, are represented by:

          Elizabeth Ferrick, Esq.
          Roger K. Heindenreich, Esq.
          Amy E. Sestric, Esq.
          DENTONS US, LLP
          3000 One Metropolitan Square
          211 North Broadway
          Saint Louis, MO 63102-0000
          Telephone: (314) 259-5910
          E-mail: elizabeth.ferrick@dentons.com
                  roger.heidenreich@dentons.com
                  amy.sestric@dentons.com

               - and -

          James A. Klenk, Esq.
          Anders C. Wick, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          7800 Sears Tower
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-6404
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: james.klenk@dentons.com
                  anders.wick@dentons.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Petition for Special Action Fully Briefed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the Arizona
Owner-operator Class Action Litigation, Plaintiff's Petition for
Special Action has been fully briefed and argued, and a decision
is pending.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472 (the "Garza Complaint"). The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's
petition for class certification.

The plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of
Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the
trial court's denial of class certification and remanding the case
back to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a
petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the
issue of class certification as a consequence of the denial of the
Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals.

On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed
the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all
persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who
contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30,
1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles
driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month
period under a one-year contract that no longer exists. In
addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings with
respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's
motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to
decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no
breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class
size based on statute of limitations.

On November 13, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to add
new class representatives for the employee class and therefore the
employee class remains without a plaintiff class representative.
On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two motions for
summary judgment (1) to dismiss any claims related to the employee
class since there is no class representative; and (2) to dismiss
plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing.

On July 14, 2015, the court granted Swift's motion to decertify
the entire class.  On December 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a
Petition for Special Action with the Arizona Court of Appeals.
That petition has been fully briefed and argued, and a decision is
pending.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Dispositive Motion Briefing Due August 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the so-called
Ninth Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action
Litigation remains pending in the district court and dispositive
motion briefing will be completed in August 2016.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and
Joseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Sheer Complaint"). The
putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit
also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease
agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with
IEL.

At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 450
other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit.
Upon Swift's motion, the matter was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
United States District Court in Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,
2010, the district court granted Swift's motion to compel
arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed, pending
the outcome of arbitration. The district court further denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for
conditional class certification. The district court also denied
plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.
The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the district court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated.

On July 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and thereafter the
district court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
certified its September 30, 2010 order. The plaintiffs filed an
interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
overturn the district court's September 30, 2010 order to compel
arbitration, alleging that the agreement to arbitrate is exempt
from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA") because the class of plaintiffs allegedly consists of
employees exempt from arbitration agreements.

On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded, stating its prior published decision, "expressly
held that a district court must determine whether an agreement for
arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA
as a threshold matter." As a consequence of this determination by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision
of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on
February 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whether
the district court or arbitrator should determine whether the
contract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the
Federal Arbitration Act.

On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the
Company's petition for writ of certiorari.  The matter remains
pending in the district court and dispositive motion briefing will
be completed in August 2016.

The Company also filed a writ of mandamus and appeal from the
district court's order that effectively denied the Company's
motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument
on November 16, 2015 and the parties await a decision from the
Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any
proceedings.

The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Ruling in "Burnell" Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Burnell and Gilbert Saucillo filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their purported class action lawsuit styled John
Burnell, et al. v. Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC,
Case No. 5:10-cv-00809-VAP-OP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.

The appellate case is titled John Burnell, et al. v. Swift
Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC, Case No. 16-80070, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips entered an order denying class
certification in the lawsuit.  The Plaintiffs are California
residents, who worked for Swift as drivers during all relevant
time periods.  The Plaintiffs allege that Swift had a policy of
violating a number of California Labor Code provisions, including
the requirement to pay minimum wages for all hours worked and the
requirement to provide meal and rest breaks.

Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 22, 2010,
a class action lawsuit was filed by John Burnell, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly-situated persons against Swift
Transportation: John Burnell and all others similarly-situated v.
Swift Transportation Co., Inc., filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino (the "Burnell Complaint").

On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "California Court"), Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The
putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the
four years preceding the date of filing alleges that Swift failed
to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal
and rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation
from employment.

On April 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to
alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor
Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

"The issue of class certification must first be resolved before
the California Court will address the merits of these cases, and
the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages, pending a determination of class certification. Class
certification briefing is now complete and a class certification
hearing was scheduled for April 25, 2016," the Company said.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners John Burnell and Gilbert Saucillo are
represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Christina Ann Humphrey, Esq.
          Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
                  chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          David Christopher Leimbach, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN LLP
          3200 El Camino Real
          Irvine, CA 92602
          Telephone: (585) 255-0158
          E-mail: dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC,
is represented by:

          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3182
          E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
                  rholland@sheppardmullin.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Rudsell" Suit in Calif. Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company was
served on April 5, 2012, with an additional class action
complaint, alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the
Burnell Complaint: James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona,
LLC and Swift Transportation Company, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino (the "Rudsell Complaint"). On
May 3, 2012, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the
California Court, Case No. EDCV12-00692-VAP. The Rudsell Complaint
was stayed on April 29, 2013, pending a resolution of the Burnell
Complaint.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Complaint in Calif. Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit was filed on September 25, 2014, by Lawrence Peck on
behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated persons against
Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona,
LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside (the
"Peck Complaint"). The putative class, which includes current and
former non-exempt employee truck drivers who performed services in
California within the four-year statutory period, alleges that
Swift failed to pay for all hours worked (specifically that pay-
per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving related
services), failed to pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse
work-related expenses, failed to timely pay wages and failed to
provide accurate wage statements. On October 24, 2014, upon motion
by Swift, the matter was removed to the California Court, Case No.
14-CV-02206-VAP. The Peck Complaint was stayed on April 6, 2015,
pending a resolution of the earlier filed cases.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Complaint in Calif. Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Sadashiv Mares
filed on February 27, 2015, a complaint alleging five Causes of
Action arising under California state law on behalf of himself and
a putative class against Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (the "Mares
Complaint").  On July 13, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter
was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Case No. 2:15-CV-03253-JSW. Upon the
Parties stipulation, on October 17, 2015, the case was transferred
to the California Court, Case No. 2:15-CV-07920-VAP. The Mares
Complaint was stayed on February 24, 2016, pending a resolution of
the earlier filed cases.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "McKinsty" Complaint in Calif. Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint was
filed on or about April 15, 2015, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino: Rafael McKinsty et al. v.
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., (the "McKinsty
Complaint").  The McKinsty Complaint, a purported class action,
alleges violation of California rest break laws and is similar to
the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck and Mares Complaints.  On July 2, 2015,
upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the California
Court, Case No. 15-CV-1317-VAP. The McKinsty Complaint was stayed
on August 19, 2015, pending a resolution of the earlier filed
cases.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Nilsen" Complaint in Calif. Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit was filed on October 15, 2015, in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside: Thor Nilsen v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (the "Nilsen Complaint"). The
Nilsen Complaint alleges violations of California law similar to
the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck, Mares, and McKinsty Complaints. On
December 9, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to
the California Court, Case No. 15-CV-02504-VAP. The Nilsen
Complaint was stayed January 29, 2016, pending resolution of the
earlier filed cases.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Evaluating Options in "Fritsch" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
evaluating its options and will be preparing a Responsive pleading
in the class action lawsuit by Grant Fritsch.

On January 28, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by Grant
Fritsch, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation Services, LLC and
Swift Transportation Company in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Bernardino (the "Fritsch Complaint"). Mr. Fritsch
worked for Swift as a yard hostler and he purports to represent a
class of "all non-exempt maintenance and service employees" of
Swift Transportation Services, LLC and/or Swift Transportation
Company. The Fritsch Complaint alleges that Swift failed to pay
overtime and doubletime wages required by California law, failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to timely pay wages
upon separation from employment. The Complaint also includes a
claim under the Private Attorneys General Act.

The Company is evaluating its options and will be preparing a
Responsive pleading shortly. The Company retains all of its
defenses against liability and damages. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the merits of these claims and to
challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and
the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal "Julian" Overtime Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's
Motion to dismiss overtime claims in the "Julian" Fair Labor
Standards Act class action.

On December 29, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by Pamela
Julian, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
persons against Swift Transportation, Inc., et al. in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:15-
CV-01212-UNA (the "Julian Compliant"). The Julian Complaint
alleges that Swift violated the FLSA by failing to pay its trainee
drivers minimum wage for all work performed and by failing to pay
overtime.

On February 29, 2016, upon Stipulation of the Parties, the court
transferred the case to the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, Case No. 2:16-CV-00576-ROS. On March 9, 2016,
Swift filed a Motion to dismiss plaintiffs' overtime claims. That
Motion is currently pending before the court.

The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Action in Washington in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has
approved the Plaintiffs' proposed class notice in the lawsuit by
Troy Slack and the matter is now in discovery.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and all
similarly-situated persons, against Swift Transportation: Troy
Slack, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and
Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,
Pierce County (the "Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was
removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-
114380. The putative class includes all current and former
Washington state-based employee drivers during the three-year
statutory period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and through
the present, and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage and
overtime in accordance with Washington state law and that they
suffered unlawful deductions from wages.

On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as
it pertains to "dedicated" drivers and did not certify any other
class, including any class related to over-the-road drivers.

On September 2, 2015, new counsel was appointed for Plaintiffs and
on November 16, 2015, new legal counsel was substituted for the
Company. As a result of the substitution of counsel for both
parties, the court has extended all existing dates by ten months.

On April 1, 2016, the Court entered an Order Approving the
Plaintiffs' proposed class notice. The matter is now in discovery.

The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Suit in Washington in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the class action
by Julie Hedglin is expected to move into discovery.

On January 14, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by Julie
Hedglin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated against Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the
State Court of Washington, Pierce County (the "Hedglin
Complaint"). The Hedglin Complaint was removed to federal court on
February 18, 2016, 3:16-CV-05127-RJB. The putative class includes
all current and former Washington heavy haul drivers and alleges
the class was not paid for meal and rest periods, overtime, was
not paid all wages due at established pay periods, and was not
provided accurate wage statements. The matter is in its initial
phases and is expected to move into discovery.

The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Transfer of Indiana Case to Utah
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has
sought to transfer a class action lawsuit over violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act from Indiana to Utah.

On March 18, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by Melvin
Banks, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
persons against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Case
No. 2:15-CV-00105. The complaint alleges that Central Refrigerated
Service, Inc. violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to
provide job applicants with adverse action notices and copies of
their consumer reports and statements of rights.

At this time, the size of the potential class is unknown. Initial
discovery regarding the potential class has begun and the Company
has sought to transfer the case from Indiana to Utah.

The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Discovery Underway in Utah Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties are
conducting discovery in a collective action in Utah.

On June 1, 2012, Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree
filed a putative class and collective action lawsuit against
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon
Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes (collectively referred to herein as the
"Central Parties"), Case No. ED CV 12-00886 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. Through
this action, the plaintiffs alleged that the Central Parties
misclassified owner-operator drivers as independent contractors
and were therefore liable to these drivers for minimum wages and
other employee benefits under the FLSA. The complaint also alleged
a federal forced labor claim under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1589 and 1595,
as well as fraud and other state-law claims.

Pursuant to the plaintiffs' owner-operator agreements, the
district court issued an Order compelling arbitration and directed
that the plaintiffs' causes of action under the FLSA should
proceed to collective arbitration, while their forced labor, fraud
and state law claims would proceed as separate individual
arbitrations. A collective arbitration was subsequently initiated
with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). Notice of the
collective arbitration was sent to more than 3,000 owner-operators
who worked for Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. and leased a
vehicle from Central Leasing, Inc. on or after June 1, 2009. The
parties are currently conducting discovery. No trial date has been
set by the arbitrator.

In addition to the collective arbitration that is pending before
the AAA, the three named plaintiffs, along with approximately 400
other owner-operators, have initiated a series of individual,
bilateral proceedings against the Central Parties with the AAA.
Discovery is commencing in these individual cases, which are
pending before approximately 30 separate arbitrators. Actual trial
dates have not yet been set by the arbitrators, but the trials are
expected to commence in the fourth quarter of 2016.

Upon the acquisition of Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. by
Swift Transportation Company, the plaintiffs in both the
collective and individual actions were allowed to amend their
complaints in June 2015 to include Swift Transportation Company as
a defendant.

The Company and the Central Parties intend to vigorously defend
against the merits of plaintiffs' claims in both the collective
and individual arbitration proceedings. The final disposition of
this case and the impact cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Discovery Yet in Physical Testing Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery has not
yet commenced in the so-called California Class and Collective
Action for Pre-employment Physical Testing.

On October 6, 2014 Robin Anderson filed a putative class and
collective action against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. Case
No. 5:14-CV 02062 in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (the "Anderson Complaint"). In this
action, plaintiff alleges that pre-employment tests of physical
strength administered by a third party on behalf of Central
Refrigerated Service, Inc. had an unlawfully discriminatory impact
on female applicants and applicants over the age of 40. The suit
seeks damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Age Discrimination Act, and parallel California state law
provisions, including the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act.

Upon the acquisition of Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. by
Swift Transportation Company, Plaintiff was allowed to amend her
complaint in October 2015 to include Swift Transportation Company
and Workwell Systems, Inc. as additional defendants.

Workwell Systems, Inc. is the company that provided the physical
testing service used by Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.

The litigation is still at a very preliminary stage and plaintiff
has not yet effected service on the newly added defendants.
Discovery has not yet commenced in the case and no trial date has
been set. There is not currently any information available
regarding the number of potential members of the putative class or
collective actions.

Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. and Swift intend to vigorously
defend against the merits of plaintiff's claims. The final
disposition of this case and the impact cannot be determined at
this time.


TARGET CORPORATION: Judge Dismissed Job Applicant's Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donovan W. Frank of the District of Minnesota
granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case Thomas J. Just,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Target Corporation, Defendant, Civil No. 15-4117 (DWF/TNL) (D.
Minn.)

Thomas J. Just applied for a full-time job at Target Corporation
(Target) and completed an online job application that includes a
one-page document entitled Consent & Disclosure. In the Consent &
Disclosure provision, it provided that Just's signature on the
document authorized Target to procure a background check on him.

Just signed the Consent & Disclosure, and Target procured a
background check. The background check revealed that Just had
criminal convictions, and Target withdrew a job offer it had
extended to Just.

Just filed a putative class action against Target and alleges that
Target included impermissible extraneous information in the
Consent & Disclosure and in so doing, willfully violated the FCRA.
Just's single-count complaint claims that Just and the alleged
class members are entitled to statutory damages based on Target's
willful violation of the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure
requirement, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i), pursuant to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act's (FCRA's) civil liability provision, 15
U.S.C. Section 1681n.

Just supports his claim of willfulness by claiming that Target's
conduct is inconsistent with longstanding regulatory guidance,
judicial interpretation, and the plain language of the statute,
that Target routinely included extraneous information in its
disclosure forms and that Target knowingly benefited from imposing
unrelated and unfavorable conditions on job applicants in the
Consent & Disclosure.

Judge Frank granted Target's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Frank's memorandum opinion and order dated May 12,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/ZqlORFfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas J Just, Plaintiff, represented by Cassie C Navarro --
cnavarro@baillonthome.com -- Patricia A Bloodgood --
pabloodgood@baillonthome.com -- Shawn J Wanta --
sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- at Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Donald M Lewis --
dlewis@nilanjohnson.com -- Katie M Connolly --
kconnolly@nilanjohnson.com -- Sarah B C Riskin --
sriskin@nilanjohnson.com -- at Nilan Johnson Lewis PA


TENNESSEE: Injunction Ruling Affirmed in "Wilson" Medicaid Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the
district court's grant of a preliminary injunction in the case
captioned MELISSA WILSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DARIN
GORDON et al., Defendants-Appellants, No. 14-6191 (6th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's May 23, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/sKhklo from Leagle.com.

The 11 named plaintiffs, residents of Tennessee who applied for
Medicaid, filed a class action complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief against Darin Gordon, the Director of the Bureau
of TennCare, Larry Martin, the Commissioner of the Department of
Finance and Administration, and Dr. Raquel Hatter, the
Commissioner of Human Services (collectively "the State"),
alleging that the delays the plaintiffs have experienced in
receiving eligibility determinations on their Medicaid
applications violate 42 U.S.C. section 1396a(a)(8) of the Medicaid
statute, and that the State's failure to provide a fair hearing on
their delayed applications violates section 1396a(a)(3) and the
Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.  The
district court certified a class and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction, which requires the State to
grant a fair hearing on delayed applications to class members who
request one. The State appealed the grant of the preliminary
injunction, but has not appealed the class certification order.

ARGUED: Michael W. Kirk -- mkirk@cooperkirk.com -- COOPER & KIRK,
PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Samuel Brooke, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, Montgomery, Alabama,
for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Michael W. Kirk, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C.,
Linda A. Ross, Carolyn E. Reed, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Samuel Brooke, Sara Zampierin, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER,
Montgomery, Alabama, Jane Perkins -- perkins@healthlaw.org --
Elizabeth Edwards -- edwards@healthlaw.org -- NATIONAL HEALTH LAW
PROGRAM, Carrboro, North Carolina, Gordon Bonnyman, Jr. --
gbonnyman@tnjustice.org -- Christopher E. Coleman --
ccoleman@tnjustice.org -- TENNESSEE JUSTICE CENTER, Nashville,
Tennessee, for Appellees.

Mark B. Stern, Alisa B. Klein, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.


TOWER GROUP: Dvores Filed Appeal From Ruling in "Wilson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence B. Dvores filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Wilson v. Tower Group International, Ltd., Case
No. 14-cv-254, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

The consolidated class action lawsuit was filed over merger-
related issues.  The Troubled Company Reporter previously reported
that the lawsuit was settled and discontinued with prejudice but
without costs, providing that counsel for the Plaintiffs could
apply for restoration of the action.

The appellate case is captioned as Wilson v. Tower Group
International, Ltd., Case No. 16-1590, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Defendants in the lawsuit are Tower Group International, Ltd.,
Michael H. Lee, William A. Robbie, Steven W. Schuster, Robert S.
Smith, Jan R. Van Gorder, Austin P. Young, III, ACP Re, Ltd.,
London Acquisition Company Limited, Amtrust Financial Services,
Inc., William W. Fox, Jr., Charles A. Bryan, Francis M. Colalucci
and Tower Group, Inc.

Plaintiff-Appellee Derek Wilson is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Derek Wilson and George Strum are represented
by:

          Joshua Rubin, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: jrubin@weisslawllp.com

Plaintiff-Appellee David Raul is represented by:

          Shane Thomas Rowley, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: srowley@zlk.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Dimitriy Bekkerman and Glenn Austin Wester
are represented by:

          William Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          E-mail: ScottH@JohnsonandWeaver.com


TOWN SPORTS: Class Settlement Remains Subject to Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement reached in a class action lawsuit will
become effective upon approval of the court and the class, Town
Sports International Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations. The Company completed settlement negotiations,
pursuant to which TSI will pay its trainers the aggregate sum of
$165,000 in exchange for full releases. The settlement agreement
has been executed by the parties, which will become effective upon
approval of the court and the class.

As of March 31, 2016, Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company" or "TSI Holdings"), through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Town Sports International, LLC ("TSI, LLC"), operated
151 fitness clubs ("clubs") and three BFX Studio ("studio")
locations.


TRIDENT MANAGEMENT: Sending of 2 Notices Does Not Violate FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael A. Shipp of the District of New Jersey
granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the
case LEAH MONTGOMERY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT,
L.L.C., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-6617 (MAS) (LHG)(D.N.J.)

Plaintiff Leah Montgomery filed a putative class action suit
against Trident Asset Management LLC (Trident), asserting that
Trident violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),
15 U.S.C. Section 1692, by sending two collection notices to her
approximately eleven days apart, both of which contained a thirty
day validation notice. Plaintiff argues that defendant's sending
of two letters, each with a validation notice, leaves the least
sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her thirty day option to
effectively dispute the debt, and therefore, Trident violated the
FDCPA. Plaintiff asserts one cause of action against Trident for
violation of Section 1692g for overshadowing the validation notice
contained in the first collection letter by mailing a second
validation notice with regards to the same alleged debt within
eleven days of the first letter.

Trident argues that it did not violate the FDCPA because, if
anything, it gave plaintiff additional rights. Trident filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Shipp granted defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

A copy of Judge Shipp's memorandum opinion dated May 12, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/nGqWdyfrom Leagle.com.

LEAH MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- at MARCUS ZELMAN LLC

TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by:

     CINDY D. SALVO, Esq.
     THE SALVO LAW FIRM
     185 Fairfield Avenue, Suite 3C/3D
     West Caldwell, NJ 07006
     Telephone: 973-988-1707


UBER TECH: Faces Class Suit by Lyft Drivers
-------------------------------------------
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Lyft
driver sued Uber, claiming the ride-hailing service mounted an
effort to crush Lyft and recruit its drivers by making phony
service calls to Lyft drivers from fake accounts.

The class action, filed May 16 in San Francisco Superior Court, is
Courthouse News' top download for May 18.

According to multiple online reports, internally Uber called its
effort to quash Lyft "Operation SLOG." As initially reported by
CNN in August 2014, Lyft claimed to have hard evidence of 5,560
phantom requests over 10 months tied to Uber recruiters.

One phone number alone was tied to 21 separate accounts that had
canceled 1,524 rides, according to the CNN report. One Lyft
passenger, identified by seven different Lyft drivers as an Uber
recruiter, canceled 300 rides within two weeks.

Weeks after CNN first reported the story, theverge.com uncovered
more dirt. Interviews with contractors and emails revealed Uber's
system: Using Uber-provided iPhones and credit cards, the
contractors hailed rides and attempted to sign up drivers before
they arrived at their destination.

Contractors were paid as much as $750 in commission for a
successful recruitment. The rides often had to be canceled, for
instance, when a driver showed up who had already refused
recruitment. They would also end well short of their supposed
destination if the recruitment offer was refused, theverge.com
reported.

One email obtained by the website linked to an online form for
requesting burner phones, credit cards, and driver kits. The form
listed 10 cities including Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Miami,
and Washington.

"You Must Fill Out This Form Below In Order To Start This Process.
Then it's all the little Lyfts your heart's desire.
#shavethestache," the online form read. Lyft cars are recognized
by having a big pink mustache on the front bumper or grill.

Plaintiff Ryan Smyth says in his class action that the canceled
calls not only cost him money to run down, but the time involved
also prevented him from picking up actual riders. Lyft drivers and
their passengers were both affected by the SLOG campaign, Smyth
says.

"Uber Technologies did this to discourage Lyft drivers from
contracting with Lyft, to deprive the marketplace of Lyft drivers
so that Uber drivers could benefit, and to create a higher wait
time for Lyft customers in order to steer their patronage to Uber
Technologies in violation of California Business and Professions
Code," Smyth says in the lawsuit.

Smyth seeks class certification, nominal, compensatory and
punitive damages and restitution for unfair business practices
under California law and intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage.

He is represented by Jeffrey Fulton, as well as R. Parker White
and William Brelsford Jr. of the firm Poswall, White and
Brelsford. Both firms are in Sacramento, California.

The attorneys did not respond to emails requesting comment by
press time.

Uber's media representatives also did not return an email seeking
comment by press time.


UEBT RETIREE: Final Approval of "Barling" Suit Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Barling filed with the Court his motion for final approval
of class action settlement in the lawsuit styled HAROLD BARLING,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UEBT
RETIREE HEALTH PLAN, UFCW & EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND, and
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UFCW & EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST, Case No.
3:14-cv-04530-VC (N.D. Cal.).

Mr. Barling brought the Case, on behalf of himself and thousands
of similarly situated retirees, who receive their health benefits
from UEBT Retiree Medical Plan, in order to redress the Plan's
alleged improper imposition of deductible and coinsurance payment
requirements on Medicare-eligible participants.  According to the
Motion, the result of his efforts is a proposed settlement that,
if finally approved, will result in more than 7,300 retirees
receiving cash payments reimbursing them for deductible and
coinsurance payments that were assessed to them between 2010 and
2013.

The Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement and
preliminarily certified a settlement class on March 7, 2016.  The
total settlement payment of $800,000 is approximately 90% of the
total liability incurred during the time period, and by reaching
this settlement the class will be paid quickly and without any
risks on appeal, Mr. Barling says.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 23, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Pq5NdhrX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Teresa S. Renaker, Esq.
          RENAKER HASSELMAN LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 944
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 653-1733
          Facsimile: (415) 727-5079
          E-mail: teresa@renakerhasselman.com

               - and -

          James P. Keenley, Esq.
          BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP
          1010 Grayson Street, Suite Three
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 225-0696
          Facsimile: (510) 225-1095
          E-mail: jkeenley@bkkllp.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Ramona Stefanovic Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramona Stefanovic moves the Court to certify the classes described
in the amended complaint of the lawsuit captioned RAMONA
STEFANOVIC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00422-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Vytlacil" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled THERESA VYTLACIL, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNITED RECOVERY
SYSTEMS, LP, Case No. 2:16-cv-00421-PP (E.D. Wisc.), moves the
Court to certify the classes described in the amended complaint,
and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kvPzCPn3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Suit v. Education Department
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the
district court and remanded the case of 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
(2d. Cir.)

Plaintiffs-Appellants Ana Salazar, Marilyn Mercado, Ana Bernardez,
Jeannette Poole, Lisa Bryant, Cherryline Stevens, and Edna
Villatoro, are former students of a now-defunct chain of for-
profit beauty schools run by Wilfred American Educational
Corporation (Wilfred.)

Wilfred began as a small chain of schools offering vocational
training in beauty-related professions. By the late 1980s, it had
expanded to a nationwide chain of 58 campuses, with over 11,000
students enrolled annually. Between 1980 and 1989, Wilfred
received $405 million in federal student aid, which accounted for
between 80 and 90 percent of Wilfred's revenue.

Plaintiffs-Appellants brought a class action against defendant-
Appellee Arne Duncan, in his official capacity as the Secretary of
the United States Department of Education (DOE). Plaintiffs allege
that federal student loans were fraudulently procured on their
behalf when the Wilfred's for-profit beauty schools falsely
certified that plaintiffs had ability-to-benefit from the
education they received from Wilfred. Plaintiffs allege 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).

Plaintiffs allege that the DOE knows that Wilfred fraudulently
certified the eligibility of a large percentage of borrowers, but
has failed to notify plaintiffs that they may be eligible for
relief and has continued to collect on their loans. Plaintiffs
brought the action on behalf of themselves and a proposed class
consisting of many thousands of individuals whose eligibility for
federal student loans was falsely certified by the Wilfred schools
beginning in 1986.

Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the DOE's motion to dismiss,
holding that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a final agency
action that may be subject to judicial review and denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.

Circuit Judge Lynch vacated the judgment of the district court
dismissing plaintiff's complaint and remanded the case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

A copy of Circuit Judge Lynch opinion dated May 12, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/AKjZBZfrom Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs-Appellants:

     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 #18
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: 212-613-5000

For Defendant-Appellee

     Preet Bharara, Esq.
     Christina S. Poscablo, Esq.
     Ellen London, Esq.
     Emily E. Daughtry, Esq.
     United States Attorney's Office
     300 Quarropas Street
     White Plains, NY 10601-4150
     Telephone: 914-993-1900

Toby R. Merrill, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School,
Jamaica Plain, MA, for Amici Curiae East Bay Community Law Center,
Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, National Consumer Law
Center, New Economy Project, in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants

The United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Gerard E. Lynch, Peter W. Hall and District
Judge Jed S. Rakoff


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From E.D. Pa. Ruling Filed in 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Fain filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in his
lawsuit titled Ryan Fain v. USA Technologies Inc., et al., Case
No. 2-15-cv-05427, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit is brought by Ryan Fain, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, over alleged violations of securities
laws.

The appellate case is captioned Ryan Fain v. USA Technologies
Inc., et al., Case No. 16-2436, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com

               - and -

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          2001 Market Street
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Ira N. Richards, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3838
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 751-2503
          E-mail: irichards@schnader.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          M. Norman Goldberger, Esq.
          Laura E. Krabill, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8850
          E-mail: goldbergerm@ballardspahr.com
                  krabilll@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Evan Krick, Esq.
          KAISERMAN COMPANY INC.
          20 South 18th Street, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8284


VANGUARD NATURAL: Dismissal of Eagle Rock Merger Case Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLCsaid in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the federal
defendants have sought dismissal of the litigation relating to the
Eagle Rock Merger.

On May 28, 2015 and June 10, 2015, alleged Eagle Rock unitholders
(the "State Plaintiffs") filed two derivative and class action
lawsuits against Eagle Rock, Eagle Rock GP, Eagle Rock Energy G&P,
LLC ("Eagle Rock G&P"), Vanguard, Talon Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly
owned indirect subsidiary of Vanguard ("Merger Sub"), and the
members of Eagle Rock G&P's board of directors (collectively, the
"Defendants"). These lawsuits were consolidated as Irving and
Judith Braun v. Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015-
30441, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 125th
Judicial District (the "State Lawsuits").

On November 11, 2015, the State Lawsuits were voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

On June 1, 2015, another alleged Eagle Rock unitholder filed a
class action lawsuit against Eagle Rock G&P and the members of
Eagle Rock G&P's board of directors (the "Federal Defendants").
This lawsuit was styled Pieter Heydenrych v. Eagle Rock Energy
Partners, L.P. et al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (the "Federal Lawsuit"). On February 12, 2016, certain
additional alleged Eagle Rock unitholders (the "Federal
Plaintiffs") amended the complaint in the Federal Lawsuit (the
"Amended Complaint"), which is now styled Irving Braun, et al. v.
Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470.

In the Amended Complaint, the Federal Plaintiffs allege multiple
causes of action related to the registration statement and proxy
statement filed with the SEC in connection with the Eagle Rock
Merger, including that (i) Vanguard and certain of its officers
and directors have allegedly violated Section 11 of the Securities
Act for including inaccurate, misleading and untrue material
statements in the registration statement and proxy statement
related to the Eagle Rock Merger , (ii) the members of Vanguard's
board of directors are allegedly culpable participants in the
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act for signing the
registration statements and of Section 15 of the Securities Act
for participating in the issuance of common units in connection
with the Eagle Rock Merger, (iii) the Defendants have allegedly
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder for filing proxy statements with misleading
and untrue material statements and (iv) the Defendants have
allegedly violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act by failing to
use their control and influence to stop the violation of Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act. The Federal Plaintiffs allege that the
registration statement and proxy statement filed in connection
with the Eagle Rock Merger failed, among other things, to disclose
allegedly material details concerning (x) Eagle Rock's and
Vanguard's financial and operational projections, (y) Vanguard's
debt obligations and (z) an imminent reduction in Vanguard's
distributions to unitholders.

Based on these allegations, the Federal Plaintiffs seek damages
and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2016, the Federal Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Federal Lawsuit in its entirety under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Federal Defendants argue that, among
other things, the Federal Lawsuit should be dismissed because the
Federal Plaintiffs (i) use incorrect EBITDA figures as the basis
for the calculations in the Amended Complaint, (ii) improperly
base their omission claims on publicly available information,
(iii) allege the Federal Defendants should have disclosed
information that was speculative or contingent, (iv) inadequately
allege the purported omissions that rendered the proxy statement
misleading, (v) improperly base their claims on forward-looking
statements protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and (vi) fail to allege
the Federal Defendants knew of the alleged violation of Section 11
of the Securities Act.

Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Federal Lawsuit or any
others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of
this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve the Federal Lawsuit. The
Defendants believe the Federal Lawsuit is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against it.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Facing "Maniatis" Suit Over Debt Exchange
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLCsaid in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 1, 2016,
a purported holder of the 7.875% Senior Notes due 2020, Gregory
Maniatis, individually and purportedly on behalf of other non-
qualified institutional buyers ("non-QIBs") who beneficially held
the Senior Notes due 2020 (the "Debt Exchange Plaintiff"), filed a
class action lawsuit, against Vanguard and VNRF (collectively, the
"Debt Exchange Defendants"). The lawsuit is styled Gregory
Maniatis v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC and VNR Finance Corp.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-1578, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Debt Exchange Lawsuit").

The Debt Exchange Plaintiff alleges a variety of causes of action
challenging the Company's debt exchange, whereby the Debt Exchange
Defendants issued new 7.0% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due
2023 in exchange for certain Senior Notes due 2020, including that
the Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly (a) violated Section
316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 by benefiting themselves
and a minority of the holders of Senior Notes due 2020 at the
expense of the non-QIB holders of Senior Notes due 2020, (b)
breached the terms of the indenture governing the Senior Notes due
2020 (the "Senior Notes Indenture") and the Debt Exchange
Plaintiff's and class members' contractual rights under the Senior
Notes Indenture, (c) violated the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing in connection with the debt exchange, and (d)
unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of the Debt Exchange
Plaintiff and class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing
the value of the Senior Notes due 2020.

Based on these allegations, the Debt Exchange Plaintiff seeks
declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens created
for the benefit of the Senior Secured Second Lien Notes are null
and void and that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a
default under the Senior Notes Indenture. The Debt Exchange
Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

The Debt Exchange Lawsuit is in the early stages of litigation.
The Debt Exchange Defendants have appeared in the case, but have
yet to answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Debt
Exchange Lawsuit.

On March 28, 2016, the District Court extended the Debt Exchange
Defendants' time to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
until a date to be set by the court after the court rules on the
Debt Exchange Plaintiff's motion to consolidate all related cases.
Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Debt Exchange Lawsuit
or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the
filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time
and expense that will be required to resolve the Debt Exchange
Lawsuit. The Debt Exchange Defendants believe the Debt Exchange
Lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
it.


VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Maranda Woodward Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maranda Woodward moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled MARANDA WOODWARD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
VENGROFF WILLIAMS, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00533-RTR (E.D. Wisc.).
She further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant her (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3uaCwYzW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Intellicorp Records, Inc. Litigation remains pending, Verisk
Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

On September 9, 2015, the Company was served with a nationwide
putative class action complaint filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County in Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary
Intellicorp Records, Inc. ("Intellicorp.") titled Sherri Legrand
v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. and The Cato Corporation et al.
Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio on October 8, 2015.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on
November 5, 2015 ("Amended Complaint"), which like the prior
complaint claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
alleges two putative class claims against Intellicorp, namely (i)
a  section 1681k(a)  claim on behalf of all individuals  who were
the subjects of  consumer reports furnished  by Intellicorp which
contained  public record  information in the "Government
Sanctions" section of the report on or after September 4, 2013 and
continuing through the date the class list is prepared, and (ii) a
section 1681e(b) claim  on behalf of all individuals  who were the
subjects of  consumer reports furnished  by Intellicorp which
contained  public record  information in the "Government
Sanctions" section of the report where the address or social
security number of the subject of the report do not match the
social security number or address contained in the government
database on or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the
date the class list is prepared.

Count I of the  Amended Complaint alleges that defendant Cato
violated the FCRA by procuring  consumer reports on the plaintiff
and other class members without making the stand-alone disclosure
required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Counts II and III
allege that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681e (b) by
failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy
of the adverse information included in its consumer reports and
FCRA section 1681k (a) by failing to maintain strict procedures to
assure that the public record information reported which was
likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer was complete and
up to date, respectively.

The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants acted willfully and
seeks statutory damages for the classes in an amount not less than
one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per
violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and
attorney's fees.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "DiSalvo" Case Stayed Pending Spokeo Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the complaint by Frank
DiSalvo has been stayed pending the resolution of the United
States Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo v. Robins.

The Company was served on February 1, 2016, with a nationwide
putative class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina naming
the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.
("Intellicorp.") The complaint titled Frank DiSalvo v. Intellicorp
Records, Inc. claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and alleges a  section 1681b(b)(1)  claim on behalf of all
individuals residing in the United States who were the subjects of
consumer reports furnished  by Intellicorp for employment purposes
within the period prescribed by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p
without first obtaining from the user of the report a
certification that such user had complied with the obligations
under Section 1681b(b)(2) as to the subject of the consumer
report. The class complaint alleges that Intellicorp violated the
FCRA section 1681b(b)(1) by failing to obtain the required
specific certification from its customers to whom Intellicorp
furnished consumer reports as to each consumer report provided
before providing the specific consumer report that was the subject
of the certification. The complaint alleges that the violations
were willful or in the alternative negligent and seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees.

On April 18, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay All
Proceedings pending the resolution of the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Interthinx Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Interthinx, Inc. Litigation remains pending, Verisk Analytics,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2016.

On April 20, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics,
Inc. The plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former
subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and
individuals holding comparable positions with different titles who
were employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide
and who were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims
that the review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt
employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits
that would have been received if they were properly classified as
non-exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and
seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx, Inc. At this time, it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this
matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Snyder" Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the
case, Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., has filed a Notice of Appeal
of the Court's January 15, 2016 Order which dismissed all claims
in the Third Amended Complaint.

On August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action
is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120
defendants, including the Company and its subsidiary, Insurance
Services Office, Inc. ("ISO"). Except for the Company, ISO and the
defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard forms to
assist in insurance transactions, most of the other defendants are
property and casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim
conspired to underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim
that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants,
violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well
as state common law.

On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the
Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a
new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct
errors as the Third Amended Complaint.

The Third Amended Complaint similarly alleges that the defendants
conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not
specifically allege what role the Company or ISO played in the
alleged conspiracy. It claims that the Company and ISO, along with
all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust
and racketeering laws as well as state common law, and seeks all
available relief including injunctive, statutory, actual and
punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees.

On January 15, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal on
February 16, 2016.

The Court granted defendants' motion to strike the motion for
reconsideration on March 2, 2016 and gave plaintiffs leave to file
another motion for reconsideration in accordance with the rules
which plaintiffs filed on March 11, 2016 and which was denied by
the Court on April 25, 2016. On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs also
filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's January 15, 2016 Order
which dismissed all claims in the Third Amended Complaint.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Halloran" Plaintiffs Directed to Amend Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has given
plaintiffs in the case by Halloran et al. until May 6, 2016, to
move for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

On February 19, 2016, the Company was served with a notice of a
summons and complaint filed on January 29, 2016 against the
Company's subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc. ("ISO") in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut titled
Halloran et al. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. et al.
As alleged in the First Amended Complaint, the putative class
action is brought by four policyholders on behalf of a class of
similarly situated policyholders in eastern Connecticut who allege
that their homeowner's insurance carriers have denied or will deny
their claims for damage to their homes caused by defective
concrete.  The lawsuit alleges a breach of contract claim against
certain insurers and seeks declaratory relief as to more than 100
other insurers. It also alleges that  ISO as the drafter of the
standardized policy language at issue violated the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices (CUTPA) and the Connecticut Unfair
Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA). The plaintiffs ask that the Court
certify a class of persons similarly situated and seek relief in
the form of the cost for the replacement of their concrete
foundations, and a declaratory judgment that all of the defendant
insurance carriers are obligated to provide coverage for claims
resulting from the defective concrete as well as, attorneys' fees,
costs and interest.

On March 17, 2016 plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint
asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act, adding a number of insurer defendants and amending their
damages claim to include punitive damages. After defendants
indicated that they would be filing motions to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint at a Rule 16 Conference on April 12, 2016, the
Court gave plaintiffs until May 6, 2016 to move for leave to file
a Second Amended Complaint.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Filed Reply Brief in Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiff
in a shareholder class action have filed their reply brief in an
appeal.

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding
defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May
7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the
proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
Company's stock.

On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel
for the plaintiff and the putative class. On February 23, 2015,
the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition to its
motion to dismiss.  The court heard oral argument on the motion to
dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement. On
September 30, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss. On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scheduling order on
December 24, 2015. On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed their
opening brief and the Company filed its opposition brief on March
7, 2016. On March 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed their reply brief.
The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the litigation.

As of March 31, 2016, the Company has not recorded any reserves
for this purported class action.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in the case, In re Virtus
Investment Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation; formerly styled
as Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc. et al., remains
pending.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an
individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the
Company's current officers (the "defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original
plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. On June
9, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Arkansas Teachers
Retirement System lead plaintiff.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally
filed complaint. The Consolidated Complaint was purportedly filed
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The
Consolidated Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain funds
subadvised by F-Squared. The Consolidated Complaint alleges claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover
unspecified damages.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

A motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf
of the Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015.
Briefing of the motion was completed on December 4, 2015 and oral
argument was held on December 17, 2015. The motion is pending.

The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is
probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Motion to Dismiss "Youngers" Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a motion to
dismiss the case, Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners,
Inc. et al., is pending.

On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by an individual who alleges he is a former
shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly subadvised
by F-Squared and formerly known as the AlphaSector Funds. The
complaint purports to allege claims against the Company, certain
of the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain other
parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed on
behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010
and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and
concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading.

On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the
original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.
No other motions to be appointed lead plaintiff were filed. On
July 27, 2015, the court granted the motion, appointing movants as
lead plaintiff.

On October 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint which, among other things, added a derivative claim for
breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Virtus Opportunities Trust.
On October 19, 2015, The United States District Court for the
Central District of California entered an order transferring the
action to the Southern District of New York.

On January 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. A
motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the Company and
affiliated defendants on February 1, 2016. Briefing of the motion
was completed on March 11, 2016 and oral argument was held on
April 8, 2016. The motion is pending.

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims asserted in the
complaint are frivolous and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company believes that there is not a material loss that is
probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim.


VIVUS INC: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Action Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that a court has granted defendants' motion
to dismiss without leave to amend in the shareholder class action
lawsuit.

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be
purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud
against the Company and three of its former officers and
directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case
No. 114-cv-261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's
securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs
alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for
the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of
Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit.
Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought
damages and other relief.

On June 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint seeking its dismissal. With the
demurrer pending, on July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No.
5:14-cv-03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, based on facts substantially similar to those alleged
in their state court action.

On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the
parties, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice,
the state court action. In the federal action, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014. On December 3, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in the federal action.

On January 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint. The court ruled on that motion on June
18, 2015, dismissing the seven California claims with prejudice
and dismissing the two federal claims with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 17, 2015.
Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 2, 2015. On
September 10, 2015, plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment on
their state claims. Briefing on both defendants' motion to dismiss
and plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment was completed on
December 15, 2015.

On April 19, 2016, the court issued a ruling granting defendants'
motion to dismiss without leave to amend and denying as moot
plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment.  The time for plaintiffs
to file an appeal has not yet expired.

The Company maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance
that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost
of the remaining Jasin action, subject to the use of the Company's
financial resources to pay for the Company's self-insured
retention and the policies' terms and conditions.

The Company and the defendant former officers and directors cannot
predict the outcome of the lawsuit, but they believe the lawsuit
is without merit and intend to continue vigorously defending
against the claims.


WALTER INVESTMENT: June 10 Hearing on Request to Notify Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has
scheduled a hearing for June 10, 2016 to consider, among other
things, the parties' request to notify potential members of the
class and to set a date for a final hearing to decide whether to
approve a proposed settlement.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.).

On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed. The
amended complaint named as defendants the Company, Mark O'Brien,
Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian Corey and
Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter Investment
Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The amended
complaint asserted federal securities law claims against the
Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.

On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and
alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company
and the individual defendants made material misstatements or
omissions relating to the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance
with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Ditech
Financial, the liabilities associated with the Company's
acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint
sought class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014.

On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision
that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions
in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims
against Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims
relating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS.

On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that,
among other things, added certain allegations concerning the
Company's settlement with the FTC and CFPB. On July 24, 2015, the
Company and Messrs. Anderson and Corey filed an answer to the
third amended complaint, which denied the substantive allegations
and asserted various defenses.

On August 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the court granted in substantial part on
March 16, 2016.

On April 15, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement to fully
resolve all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted
in the action for a total payment of $24 million, which is
inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and all other costs
associated with the proposed settlement. Certain insurers for the
Company have agreed to pay the full amount of the proposed
settlement.

The proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval,
provides that defendants, including the Company, are not making
any admission of liability or wrongdoing. The court has scheduled
a hearing for June 10, 2016 to consider, among other things, the
parties' request to notify potential members of the class and to
set a date for a final hearing to decide whether to approve the
proposed settlement. The Company cannot provide any assurance as
to the outcome of the action or that such an outcome will not have
a material adverse effect on its reputation, business, prospects,
results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Hearing Held on Final Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case,
Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al., a hearing for
final approval of the settlement was scheduled for May 12, 2016.

Ditech Financial is subject to several putative class action
lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance. These actions allege
that Ditech Financial and its affiliates improperly received
benefits from lender-placed insurance providers in the form of
commissions for work not performed, services provided at a reduced
cost, and expense reimbursements that did not reflect the actual
cost of the services rendered. Plaintiffs in these suits assert
various theories of recovery and seek remedies including
compensatory, actual, punitive, statutory and treble damages,
return of unjust benefits, and injunctive relief.

One such matter is Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et
al. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 17, 2014 and amended on October 16,
2014. A settlement agreement was reached between the parties in
the Circeo-Loudon matter on September 11, 2015. This settlement
received preliminary approval by the court on December 8, 2015 and
a hearing for final approval was scheduled for May 12, 2016.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, all of the defendants
collectively, including Ditech Financial, are required to pay
damages to class members who timely file a claim, administrative
costs to effectuate the settlement and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company believes it has accrued the full amount expected to be
paid under the settlement agreement in its consolidated financial
statements as of December 31, 2015. The settlement agreement also
provides that Ditech Financial and its subsidiary, Green Tree
Insurance Agency, Inc., and their affiliates will be released from
certain claims and may no longer receive commissions on the
placement of certain lender-placed insurance for a period of five
years commencing 120 days from the effective date of the
settlement. The Company expects that this settlement, if approved
by the court, will lead to the ultimate resolution of the other
putative class action lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance
to which Ditech Financial is currently subject, although the
proposed settlement does not apply to potential claims by class
members who opt out of the proposed settlement.


WELLS FARGO: "Bias" RICO Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge questioned whether the relationship between
Wells Fargo and its subsidiary forms a sufficient basis for
racketeering claims in a case accusing the bank of charging
inflated fees and interest rates to homebuyers in default.

Lead plaintiff Latara Bias filed the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act -- commonly known as RICO -- class
action against Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase in 2012, claiming
the banks use an automated mortgage-loan management system to
"fraudulently conceal their unlawful assessment of improperly
marked-up or unnecessary fees for default-related services."

At May 17 hearing of a motion for summary judgment, U.S. District
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers asked the plaintiffs' attorney Daniel
Alberstone to clarify why his clients' allegations indicate a RICO
organization.

"I need you to do a better job explaining to me what your theory
is of the enterprise in fact," Rogers said. "Because from what I
can tell in the briefing, there is either a lot of waffling going
on or there are a lot of alternatives going on."

Alberstine told Rogers that the Wells Fargo parent company, its
subsidiary and a group of third-party vendors and brokers formed
an "association-in-fact enterprise" under RICO.

Rogers then asked whether the relationship between the two Wells
Fargo defendants was sufficient to support such an enterprise
without applying the "something more" test, which requires
something more than legal separateness to establish RICO
distinctness.

"It seems to me that I need to decide whether the 'something more'
test applies," the judge said. "And there is no Ninth Circuit
authority on that threshold proposition."

Alberstine said that the case would pass that test because the
"something more" is Wells Fargo's creation of its Premiere Asset
Services department, which is responsible for the sale of bank-
owned houses.

But Wells Fargo's attorney contended that the "something more"
test is "not just anything more," and that Wells Fargo's parent
company could not have facilitated the alleged fraud because it is
nothing more than a holding company.

Rogers did not indicate how or when she expects to rule.


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Certification of Class Sought in "Neldner" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Neldner moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER NELDNER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, Case No. 2:16-cv-00519-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.).  He also asks the Court to both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant him (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Wendie Vogelman Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Wendie Vogelman moves the Court to certify the class
described in the amended complaint of the lawsuit entitled WENDIE
VOGELMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, and RCS RECOVERY
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00552-PP (E.D. Wisc.).  The
Plaintiff further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WERNER ENTERPRISES: $2MM Liability Over Short Break Matter
----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, 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 had a $2.0
million estimated liability at March 31, 2016 related to the short
break matter.

The Company said, "We are involved in class action litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, alleging
that we owe drivers for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act and
failed to pay minimum wage per hour for drivers in our student
driver training program, related to short break time and sleeper
berth time. The period covered by this class action suit dates
back to 2008 through March 2014."

"In August 2015, the court denied our motion for summary judgment
and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ruling in
plaintiff's favor on both theories of liability (short breaks and
sleeper berth time). As a result, we had a $2.0 million estimated
liability at March 31, 2016 related to the short break matter.

"Based on the knowledge of the facts related to the sleeper berth
matter, management does not currently believe a loss is probable,
thus we have not accrued for the sleeper berth matter. We are
currently unable to determine the possible loss or range of loss.
We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these claims and to
appeal any adverse verdict in this case."

Werner operates in the truckload and logistics sectors of the
transportation industry.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Meal and Rest Breaks Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, 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 is
involved in certain class action litigation in which the
plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions and other items.

"Based on the knowledge of the facts, management does not
currently believe the outcome of the litigation is likely to have
a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations. However, the final disposition of these matters and
the impact of such final dispositions cannot be determined at this
time," the Company said.

Werner operates in the truckload and logistics sectors of the
transportation industry.


WESTERN UNION: Defending "Tennille" and "Smet" Actions in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and one of
its subsidiaries are defendants in two purported class action
lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company and
Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both of which are
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.

The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various
consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and
declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits
too long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not
redeemed by the recipients and that the Company uses the
unredeemed funds to generate income until the funds are escheated
to state governments.

The Tennille complaint was served on the Company on April 27,
2009. The Smet complaint was served on the Company on April 6,
2010.

On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an
amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille
amended complaint and the Smet complaint.

On November 8, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to
the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and conversion claims. On
February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer
protection claims.

On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its
declaratory relief claim and WUFSI as a defendant. On April 25,
2011, the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach
of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved
to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the
action pending arbitration.

On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel
arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the
decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the
District Court proceedings pending their appeal.

During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on
January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order
certifying the class and granting final approval to the
settlement.

Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of the
settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel's fees,
administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from the
class members' unclaimed money transfer funds, which are included
within "Settlement obligations" in the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. These fees and other expenses are
currently estimated to be approximately $50 million.

During the final approval hearing, the Court overruled objections
to the settlement that had been filed by several class members. In
July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal.

On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to overrule the
objections filed by the two class members who appealed. On January
11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for
certiorari that were filed by the two class members who appealed.

On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement agreement and the
Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order, Western Union
deposited the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a
class settlement fund, from which class member claims,
administrative fees and class counsel's fees, as well as other
expenses will be paid.

On November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified
Western Union of the California Controller's position that Western
Union's deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the
class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement "will not satisfy
Western Union's obligations to report and remit funds" under
California's unclaimed property law, and that "Western Union will
remain liable to the State of California" for the funds that would
have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement. The
State of Pennsylvania and District of Columbia have previously
expressed similar views. Other states have also recently expressed
concerns about the settlement and many have not yet expressed an
opinion.

Since some states and jurisdictions believe that the Company must
escheat its full share of the settlement fund and that the
deductions for class counsel's fees, administrative costs, and
other expenses that are required under the settlement agreement
are not permitted, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could
result up to approximately the amount of those fees and other
expenses. However, given the number of jurisdictions involved and
the fact that no actions have been brought, the Company is unable
to provide a more precise estimate of the range of possible loss.


WESTERN UNION: Final Approval of "Douglas" Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that final approval of the
class action lawsuit by Jason Douglas still pending.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During
the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the
plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement.

The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10,
2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any
amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer.
However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to
satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable
to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the
parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company
believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of
amounts already accrued is remote.


WESTERN UNION: "Pincus" Action Pending in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the class action
lawsuit by Caryn Pincus remains pending.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a
subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations
that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card
transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission
without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class
and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who
made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a
credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during
the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the
complaint through the date of class certification.

On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to
dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1)
under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which
authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2)
for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying
Speedpay's motion to dismiss.

On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended
complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended
complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new
claims. On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the
second amended complaint.

As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter.


WILLBROS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Restatement Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion
to dismiss litigation related to the Company's October 21, 2014
press release announcing the restatement of condensed consolidated
financial statements for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014,
remains pending.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28,
2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants
in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer,
Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer.

On January 31, 2015, the court named two employee retirement
systems as Lead Plaintiffs. On March 31, 2015, a consolidated
complaint was filed in which John T. McNabb, II, the former chief
executive officer who had succeeded Mr. Harl, was added as a
defendant.

On June 15, 2015, a second amended consolidated complaint was
filed. The complaint in the case, now entitled In re Willbros
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, arising out of the restatements of the Company's first
and second quarter 2014 financial statements, its statements
regarding debt compliance and liquidity, the decision to shut down
the regional business, the delay in filing the 2014 10-K, and the
determination that a material weakness existed as of December 31,
2014, and seeks unspecified damages.

On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case,
which is still pending. The Company is not able at this time to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.

Willbros Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its
subsidiaries, is a specialty energy infrastructure contractor
serving the oil and gas and power industries with offerings that
primarily include construction, maintenance and facilities
development services.


XEROX BUSINESS: "Douglas" Suit Plaintiffs File Appeal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kristy Douglas and Tysheka Richard filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit captioned Kristy Douglas, et al. v.
Xerox Business Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01798-JCC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, alleging that the Defendants require off-the-clock
work.

The appellate case is entitled Kristy Douglas, et al. v. Xerox
Business Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-35425, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Marc Cote, Esq.
          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603

               - and -

          Daniel Foster Johnson, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652-8660
          E-mail: djohnson@bjtlegal.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Patrick Michael Madden, Esq.
          Todd L. Nunn, Esq.
          Ryan D. Redekopp, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          925 Fourth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 623-7580
          E-mail: patrick.madden@klgates.com
                  todd.nunn@klgates.com
                  ryan.redekopp@klgates.com


                            *********

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  * * *