CAR_Public/160607.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 113



                            Headlines


1ST CENTURY BANCSHARES: "Drulias" Class Action Filed
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Bonilla" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ADOLFO BAZAN: Faces JPS Suit in W.D. Tex.
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: To Pay $1.22 Million Settlement

AKARA RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Gold Mine
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Remand Granted
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
ALL AMERICAN: "Beridze" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
ALLIANCE MOVING: "Barker" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Chernyakhovskaya" Suit in D.N.J.
APPLE HEALTH: Judge Orders Wash. Medicaid to Provide Harvoni Drug
ARIZONA: ACLU Seeks Probe of Sheriff Arpaio
ARRIUM: Shareholders Mull Class Action Against Former Management
ARTEC CONSTRUCTION: "Loja" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Benefits

AUSTRALIA: To Offer Compensation to Chemotherapy Bungle Victims
AUSTRALIA: Barnaby Comments on Impact of Live Cattle Export Ban
BACK-IN-GEAR INC: "Avelar" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
BANK OF AMERICA: Philadelphia City Files Anti-Trust Suit
BAR CHATEAU: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Calif. Labor Code

BHP BILLITON: Investors File Securities Class Action in New York
BMW: Electric Car Dangerous, Calif. Class Suit Says
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Apple" Lawsuit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 7 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct.
BRASKEM S.A.: Petrochem Workers Union's Suit in Progress

BRASKEM S.A.: Securities Case Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint
BURGERS & CUPCAKES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
C & C PRODUCTS: Faces "Cardona" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 12
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sought Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid

CANADA: SOPAC Disappointed Over Moose-Collision Suit Dismissal
CHH BEAUTY: "Frazier" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CHICAGO, IL: Women Firefighters Graduate Following Settlement
CIGNA CORP: Bid to Remove "Kucharski" Suit D. Conn. Filed
CITY PASS: "Lam" Sues Over Deceptive Ads

COLLECTO INC: Faces "Tala" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
COOK MEDICAL: "Homes" Suit Transferred to Indiana Court
CUMULUS MEDIA: Still Defends ABS Entertainment Suit
DENSO CORP: "Adams" Sues Over Overpriced Ceramic
DOLAR SHOP: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

E&M BRONX: Faces New York Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lied About New Drug, Investors Claim
ELPIDA LLC: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Pursuant to FLSA, Ohio Labor Laws
EPIC SYSTEMS: Arbitration Provision Violates NLRA, 7th Cir. Says
EQUIFAX INC: Sued in N.D. Ga. Over Data Security Breach

EROS INTERNATIONAL: "Abram" SEC Complaint Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: "Fleming" Sues Over Shadowy Investments
FITBIT: Says Study Used in Fitness Tracker Class Action Biased
FLOWERS FOODS: "Boulange" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to E. D. Penn
FNB: Forensic Science Expert Mulls Class Action Over Negligence

FOOTBRDIGE COMPANIES: "Danos" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Homestead Sue over Overpriced Alum
GREEN DOT: "Lewis" Suit Asserts Breach of Contract
JUANA M BRICKELL: Faces "Ballate" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
KEYSTONE MERCY: Court Upholds Data Breach Class Action Dismissal

LANGSTON CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
LAZAR EDIBLES: Faces "Correa" Suit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
LEONE HALPIN: Faces "Palin" Suit in M.D. Fla.
MAGIC OPERATING: "Diallo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Code
MARGARITAVILLE: "Saunders" Suit Moved to Southern Carolina Ct.

MARS INC: Sued in Calif. Over Uncle Ben's Rice Products Packaging
MARTHA GREEN'S: Restaurant Do Offers Rest Break to Employees
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Continues to Defend Suit in Fresno County
MCDONALD'S: Blind Man Files Class Action Over Drive-Thru Policy
METRO TECH: Faces "Blystone" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation

MORGAN KEEGAN: Cromeans Asks 8th Cir. to Review W.D. Mo. Ruling
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Washington Cty. Suit Moved to W.D. Penn.
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Report Critical of Concussion Research Committee
NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Parking Tickets
NEW YORK: Port Authority Cops File Class Action v. Doctors

NISSAN: Drivers File Class Suit in Seattle Over Sunroofs
NRG ENERGY: Hearing Held in May on Motion for Summary Judgment
NRG RESIDENTIAL: TCPA Class Suits Pending in Calif. & N.J.
NRG YIELD: Defending Against "Braun" Suit in Calif.
OCWEN LOAN: "Santos" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend

PAIN THERAPEUTICS: March 2017 Trial in KB Partners Case
RAMSBEE CORP: "Meehan" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
ROBERSON TIRE: "Henderson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SALDIVENA OF BROWARD: "Campos" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages

SEADOG BREWPUB: "Brown" Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations
SMYTHE CRAMER: Obtains Reversal of Class Certification Order
SN SERVICING: Faces "Russell" Suit in N.D. W. Virg.
SOHO SUSHI: Faces "Dong" Suit Pursuant to FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law

SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Provides Update on Ontario Class Action
STONERIDGE INC: District Court Has Yet to Adopt Ruling in "Verde"
STONERIDGE INC: "Royal" Class Suit Pending in W.D. Okla.
SUNEDISON INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TALENTBIN INC: ICRAA Claims Dismissed

TEXAS: Takes Steps to Revamp Sex Offender Treatment Program
TRANSLINK: Set to Compensate Canada Line Class Action Members
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Reseals Documents
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Nov. 28 Trial Set in Fraud Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Smythe" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

UNILIFE CORP: Faces Class Action, July 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
UPC AUSTRIA: Austrian Consumer Association Wins Class Action
VASCO DATA: Still Defends "Rossbach" Suit in N.D. Ill.
VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Faces "Landau" Suit in E.D. Penn.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Farnbauch" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Judge Narrows Claims in "Bumgarner" Suit
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Merger Class Suit in Oklahoma Dismissed
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Class Suit by WPZ Unitholder Filed
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Geismar Cases Begins September
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Court Dismissed Class and Derivative Action

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Class Actions Filed in Delaware Chancery
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plaintiff Dismissed Suit in Del. Dist. Court
WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Court Trims Claims in Stockholder Suit
WPX ENERGY: Royalty Suit in Colorado Stayed
WPX ENERGY: 2 Royalty Suits Pending in New Mexico

XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Units Defending Class Actions
XPO LOGISTICS: Completed Settlements of Multi-Plaintiff Actions
XPO LOGISTICS: "Leung" Last Mile TCPA Claims Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Still Faces Less-Than-Truckload Meal Break Claims
XPO LOGISTICS: To Pay Fees of Plaintiff's Counsel in Con-way Suit

ZONI LANGUAGE: Appeal Filed in "Fernandez" FLSA Class Suit

* Canada Court Fails to Address Waiver of Tort Cert. Issues
* CFPB Proposal to Open Class Action Floodgate, Attorney Says
* Chicago City Treasurer Calls for Class Actions v. Big Banks
* Fitness Trackers Wildly Inaccurate, New Research Shows
* Meritless RICO Suits v. Pharma Cos. to Drive Up Drug Prices

* States See Uptick in Hail Damage Claims v. Insurance Companies
* Third-Party Litigation Funding Needs Regulation


                            *********


1ST CENTURY BANCSHARES: "Drulias" Class Action Filed
----------------------------------------------------
1st Century Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative
stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Dean Drulias v. 1st
Century Bancshares, Inc. et. al, Case No. 16CV294673, was filed on
May 3, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Santa Clara in connection with the proposed
Merger between the Company and Midland (the "Drulias Action"). The
Drulias Action alleges, among other things, that the members of
the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
by causing the Company to agree to the Merger based on the
individual interests of such directors as opposed to the best
interests of the Company's stockholders. The Drulias Action also
alleges that the Company and the Company's board of directors
failed to disclose material information in the preliminary proxy
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Merger. The plaintiff in this action seeks,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory and/or rescissory damages, interest, attorney's fees,
expert fees and other costs, and other relief. At this stage, it
is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceedings or their
impact on the Company or the Merger.

1st Century Bancshares, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Bancshares") is a bank holding company with one subsidiary, 1st
Century Bank, National Association (the "Bank").


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a hearing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss was held May 20, 2016, and the clerk
of court thereafter entered a minute order.

In March 2015, following the Company's announcement of the update
to the timing of its planned NDA submission to the FDA for
NUPLAZID for the treatment of Parkinson's disease psychosis
("PDP") and the subsequent decline of the price of its common
stock, two putative securities class action complaints (captioned
Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB,
and Wright v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0593-
BTM-DHB) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Court") against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers.

The complaints generally alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
timing of the Company's planned NDA submission to the FDA for
NUPLAZID, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common
stock. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

On April 10 and June 1, 2015, the Court entered orders deferring
the defendants' response to the Rihn and Wright complaints until
after the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and assigned lead
counsel.

On May 12, 2015, several putative stockholders filed separate
motions to consolidate the two actions and be appointed lead
plaintiff. On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order
consolidating the two actions, appointing lead plaintiff, and
assigning lead counsel. The ruling provides that:

     -- The Court consolidates Case Nos. 15cv575 BTM(DHB) and
15cv593 BTM(DHB). The caption page on all future filings should
contain all of the captions, and all future docketing will be done
in Case No. 15cv575, which shall be the main file.

     -- The Court granted Paul and Sharyn Levines' motion to be
appointed Lead Plaintiffs, and appointed the Levines as Lead
Plaintiffs in the consolidated Class Actions.

     -- The Court granted the Levines' motion for approval of lead
counsel. The Court appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Lead Counsel
in the consolidated Class Actions.

     -- The Court denied the competing motions for appointment as
lead plaintiff and for approval of lead counsel.

A copy of the September 8, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/q5gNl9 from Leagle.com.

On November 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint with the Court which, like the prior complaints, accuses
the defendants of making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the anticipated timing of the Company's
planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID.

On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on March 22, 2016. The defendants
filed their reply to plaintiffs' opposition on April 21, 2016. The
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled for May
20, 2016.

The Company has assessed such legal proceedings, and given the
unpredictability inherent in litigation, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of these matters. At this time, the Company is
unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may
result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any
amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than
ongoing attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff Jeff Rihn, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated represented by:

     David C Walton, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-3301
     Tel: 619-231-1058
     Fax: 619-231-7423
     Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System
represented by:

     Henry Montague Willis, Esq.
     Schwartz Steinsapir Dohrmann and Sommers
     6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000
     Los Angeles, CA 90048-5268
     Tel: (323)655-4700
     Fax: (323)655-4488
     Email: hmw@ssdslaw.com

Plaintiff Daniel P. Fay represented by:

     Alexander Louis Burns, Esq.
     Kahn Swick Foti LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Tel: 504-455-1400
     Fax: 504-455-1498
     Email: alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com

          - and -

     Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
     Kahn Swick Foti LLP
     912 Cole Street, # 251
     San Francisco, CA 94117
     Tel: 504-455-1400
     Fax: 5044551498
     Email: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com

Defendants Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. represented by:

     Blake M. Zollar, Esq.
     Cooley LLP
     4401 Eastgate Mall
     San Diego, CA 92121
     Tel: (858)550-6000
     Fax: (858)550-6420
     Email: bzollar@cooley.com

          - and -

     Koji F Fukumura, Esq.
     Peter M Adams, Esq.
     Cooley Godward Kronish
     4401 Eastgate Mall
     San Diego, CA 92121-9109
     Tel: (858)550-6000
     Fax: (858)550-6420
     Email: kfukumura@cooley.com
            padams@cooley.com

Movant Ahmad Ahmad represented by:

     James Hail, Esq.
     Doyle Lowther
     10200 Willow Creed Road, Suite 150
     San Diego, CA 92131
     Tel: (858) 935-9960
     Fax: (858) 939-1939
     Email: jim@doylelowther.com

Movant Russ Belden represented by:

     Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
     Hagens, Berman, Sobol & Shapiro, LLP
     301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Tel: (213) 330-7150
     Fax: (213) 330-7152
     Email: elaine@hbsslaw.com

Movant Paul Levine represented by:

     Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
     Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
     10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Tel: 424-256-2884
     Email: brohr@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Katherine M. Lenahan, Esq.
     Lubna M Faruqi, Esq.
     Megan Sullivan, Esq.
     Richard William Gonnello, Esq.
     Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: 212-983-9330
     Email: klenahan@faruqilaw.com
            lfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            msullivan@faruqilaw.com
            rgonnello@faruqilaw.com

Movant Robert E. Pries represented by:

     Brian O O'Mara, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 231-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     Email: bo'mara@rgrdlaw.com


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Bonilla" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
Maria Bonilla, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Account Control Technology, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 603873/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 24, 2016),
seeks to recover damages for violations of NY GBL 349 and
violations of 15 USC 1692, et. seq.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to answer, and
judgment will be taken against them for the sum of $505,000.00
with interest thereon from the 26th day of May 2015, together with
the costs of action and attorney's fees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste., 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335 1107


ADOLFO BAZAN: Faces JPS Suit in W.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Adolfo Bazan. The case is
captioned JPS Completion Fluids, Inc., P.O. Box 277, Mathis, TX
78368 Tax ID / EIN: 26-2959780, the Plaintiff, v. Adolfo Bazan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
Randy Martinez, the Defendants, Case No. 16-05042-cag (W.D. Tex.,
May 16, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Craig A. Gargotta.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathaniel Peter Holzer, Esq.
          JORDAN HYDEN WOMBLE CULBRETH & HOLZER PC
          500 N. Shoreline Blvd. Ste. 900
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 884 5678
          Facsimile: (361) 888 5555
          E-mail: pholzer@jhwclaw.com

The Defendants appear pro se.


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: To Pay $1.22 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Aerohive Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Aerohive will pay
approximately $1.22 million of the $5.75 million settlement amount
to resolve a class action complaint.

In June 2015, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors. This action was subsequently related and consolidated
with two identical, follow-on complaints and is captioned Hunter
v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Shareholder Litigation, Master
File No. 534070. The consolidated complaint alleges claims under
federal securities laws that the Registration Statement which the
Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form
S-1 in connection with its initial public offering in March 2014
contained false and/or misleading statements or omissions. The
consolidated action also names as defendants the investment firms
who underwrote the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
failed to disclose, among other things, product deficiencies, poor
sales, and a decline in sales-related personnel. The complaint
additionally alleges that the Company improperly recognized
revenue, including by booking certain sales with rights of return.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. The Company is advancing certain defense costs
with respect to individual defendants, including the underwriting
investment firms, under written indemnification agreements.

The parties have mediated this lawsuit and reached a settlement,
providing for payment to the class of plaintiffs in the amount of
$5.75 million in return for a release of all claims against the
defendants, including Aerohive and its current and former officers
and directors. The settlement is subject to final documentation
and Court approval. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement,
Aerohive will pay approximately $1.22 million of the $5.75 million
settlement amount (reflecting the amount remaining under
Aerohive's insurance retention), and the Company's insurance
carrier will pay the remainder of the settlement amount.

Aerohive Networks has designed and developed a cloud and
enterprise Wi-Fi solution that enables customers to use the power
of the Wi-Fi, cloud, analytics and applications to transform how
they serve their customers.


AKARA RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Gold Mine
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Australian goldminer,
Kingsgate Consolidated Ltd's Thai offshoot, facing closure over
its Thai mine, is threatened by a multi-million dollar
compensation lawsuit by local residents.

Kingsgate's offshoot, Akara Resources' mine in Chatree 280km north
of Bangkok, faces closure by December after a Thai Cabinet
decision on May 10 not to extend the mine's operating licence
beyond December.

But on May 27 the mine's owners faced further headaches after more
than 300 local residents filed a class action lawsuit of almost
$A20 million against Akara Resources claiming health and
environmental impacts to their communities.

Thai lawyer Phadungsak Thianphairot said each resident was
demanding about 1.5 million baht ($A58,200) for the mine's alleged
impacts on health, household expenses and lost income
opportunities due to the mine's development.

The class action lawsuit was filed with the Civil Court's
environmental section on May 27.  The court has set July 8 to
announce whether it will consider the case.

The Akara Resources' mine, 60 per cent controlled by Kingsgate,
employs about 1000 people, 65 per cent of whom come from the local
communities.

The mine, which began operations in 2001, had a 28-year mining
permit, and is producing around 100,000 ounces of gold a year,
worth around $A113 million.  Initial assay reports of the mine in
2001 put the potential gold recovery at 32 tonnes.

The mine has been the centre of accusations by local environmental
groups that it was a source of elevated levels of arsenic and
manganese in local residents.

Kingsgate executives have vigorously disputed the claims and were
initially backed by a Thai government-commissioned report which
also concluded the mine had not contaminated the surrounding area
with cyanide and heavy metals.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Remand Granted
---------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Massachusetts
federal district court has remanded a securities class action to
Suffolk County court.

In September 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, including its Chief Executive Officer,
its Chief Financial Officer, and members of its Board of
Directors, in the Business Litigation Section of the Suffolk
County Superior Court of Massachusetts.  The complaint is brought
on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased common stock
of the Company pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO, and
purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The complaint
generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the Phase 2b clinical study
of vadadustat.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission of certain stock
purchases, attorneys' fees, and costs.

In October 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Business
Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of
Massachusetts.  The plaintiff's motion to remand was granted in
April 2016.  The Company believes such claims are without merit
and will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal in a
securities class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a
lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"),
Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth
B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action").

"On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the
same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012.
The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that
during the purported class period defendants failed to take an
appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29,
2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees.

"On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint. On
August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss without
leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Align intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations. Align is
currently unable to predict the outcome of this amended complaint
and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate
a range of possible loss, if any."


ALL AMERICAN: "Beridze" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
Marina Beridze, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by All American Homecare
Agency, Inc., the Plaintiffs, v. All American Homecare Agency,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 154388/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 24,
2016), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were
statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to the
New York Labor Law (NYLL), New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
(NYCRR), New York Public Health Law and the New York City
Administrative Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess
of eight hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread
of hours" wages compensation.

The Plaintiff provides personal care, assistance, health-related
tasks and other home care services to Defendant's clients within
the State of New York.

All American provides skilled and non-skilled home health care
services in the comfort of one's own home.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080


ALLIANCE MOVING: "Barker" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
John Curtis Barker, Leshon Rome and Monique Wagner, Plaintiffs, v.
Alliance Moving Services, Inc. and Jhonathan Florez, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02591, (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2016), seek overtime
compensation and minimum wage payments, liquidated damages,
attorney fees, and costs pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Alliance Moving Services, Inc., owned by Jhonathan Florez, brokers
moving and relocation services between individuals and moving
services companies, where Plaintiffs were employed as sales
representatives.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Scimone
      Paul W. Mollica
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Chernyakhovskaya" Suit in D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate LLC. The case
is captioned Irina Chernyakhovskaya, on behalf of herself and all
other all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Allied
Interstate LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02761-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., May 16, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Jose L.
Linares.

Allied Interstate is debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


APPLE HEALTH: Judge Orders Wash. Medicaid to Provide Harvoni Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ordered
Washington Medicaid to provide an expensive drug to all hepatitis
C patients, not just the sickest ones.

U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour granted a preliminary
injunction on May 27 that forces the state Health Care Authority
to stop a 2015 policy that restricted access to the drugs based on
a measure of liver scarring, The Seattle Times reported.

The injunction was a response to a class-action lawsuit filed in
February on behalf of two clients of Apple Health, which is
Washington's version of Medicaid.  The two patients, who represent
nearly 28,000 Medicaid enrollees with hepatitis C, were denied the
drug Harvoni to treat their hepatitis C infections. It costs about
$95,000 for a 12-week treatment.

Harvoni is among the newest drugs that can halt the hepatitis C
virus, posting a cure rate of at least 90 percent.

The judge ruled that the agency's policy was not consistent with
existing state and federal Medicaid requirements that drugs be
dispensed based on medical need.

"For people who have been living with this disease and feeling
like there's no hope if they can't get this cure, this is life-
changing," said Eleanor Hamburger, a lawyer with the firm
Sirianni, Youtz, Spoonemore and Hamburger, which filed the
lawsuit.

It's not clear how soon Medicaid patients with hepatitis C may
start filling prescriptions for Harvoni and other direct-acting
antiviral drugs. The ruling orders all parties to report back
within 60 days.

Health Care Authority officials are reviewing the injunction, a
spokeswoman said.  But the state Medicaid director,
MaryAnne Lindeblad, estimated in a letter to the U.S. Senate last
fall that paying for hepatitis C treatment for all Medicaid
clients in Washington would be three times the agency's current
$1 billion drug budget.

Medical guidelines had previously supported limiting the drugs to
the sickest patients, but that changed last year.  Experts in
liver treatment and infectious disease now agree that drugs such
as Harvoni should be used to treat all patients, including those
with mild disease.

Two similar class-action suits in Washington state targeted
private insurers Group Health Cooperative and BridgeSpan, a
subsidiary of Regence Blue Shield, for rationing the drugs.
BridgeSpan changed its policy to provide the drugs to all
hepatitis C patients, and Group Health altered its plan to allow
consideration of treatment for people with lower levels of liver
scarring.


ARIZONA: ACLU Seeks Probe of Sheriff Arpaio
-------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
ACLU attorneys urged a federal judge in Phoenix May 31, to refer
Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal
investigation, two weeks after Arpaio was found in contempt of
court for disobeying orders to stop racially profiling Latinos.

The ACLU asked U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow to send a
referral to the U.S. Attorney to investigate Arpaio and his Chief
Deputy Jerry Sheridan for possible criminal charges of contempt of
court, perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false
statements to a court-appointed monitor.

"Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan, the two top commanders
of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ('MCSO'), have repeatedly
and willfully defied the rule of law and this Court. During the
course of the underlying litigation, they spoliated evidence and
violated their obligations to preserve and to produce critical
evidence," the ACLU wrote in its memorandum on remedies for civil
contempt.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow ordered Arpaio and Sheridan in
October 2013 to stop illegally targeting Latinos, but they "have
openly defied the Court's authority in front of subordinates,
repeatedly violated the Court's discovery orders, deliberately
misled the Court appointed monitor, and willfully subverted MCSO's
internal affairs system to evade being held responsible for their
misconduct. And even after they were called to account in a civil
contempt proceeding, Arpaio and Sheridan continued to flout the
rule of law by lying on the witness stand," the 37-page memo
states.

The contempt proceedings stem from a 2007 class action from lead
plaintiff Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, accusing Arpaio and
several sheriff's officers of racial profiling.

After Arpaio admitted that he allowed officers to conduct
immigration patrols after Snow barred them, and failed to turn
over traffic stop video evidence for trial, Judge Snow held
hearings to determine whether Arpaio and his top aides had defied
court orders.

In mid May, Snow issued a 162-page ruling that found Arpaio,
Sheridan, retired Chief Brian Sands, and Lt. Joe Sousa in contempt
of court for not turning over video evidence, enforcing banned
immigration laws, and refusing to collect evidence despite court
orders.

Among other things, sheriff's officers continued using race as a
determining factor when initiating traffic stops; detained and
transported at least 157 people to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement though they could not be charged with federal crimes;
and refused to investigate complaints of mistreatment by officers.
Sheriff's officers also withheld documents for the trial, lied
about their existence, and lied under oath during the evidentiary
hearing.

"In short, for more than eight years, Sheriff Arpaio has defied
this court and his obligations in the litigation. He has proved
unwilling to comply with the law. Strong remedies are needed to
protect the rights of the plaintiff class," the ACLU wrote.

In the two years since Snow issued the injunction, Arpaio's office
has achieved 61 percent compliance with promulgating court-
mandated policies, but only 38 percent compliance with enforcing
those policies. Additional reports demonstrate that the office has
increased compliance with these two criteria by 4 and 1 percent
respectively over the previous quarter, a pace the ACLU calls
"unacceptable."

Arpaio also has a record of willfully defying court orders, such
as missing deadlines for initial training, implementing use of
body cameras, and conducting periodic analysis of traffic stop
data, by years, making it clear that typical remediation measures
have little effect, the memorandum states.

The ACLU asked the court to modify the injunction to allow the
monitor to compel officers to comply with court orders, assign
personnel to units charged with compliance tasks, and use
resources to achieve compliance.

Since Arpaio and his cronies have subverted the office's internal
affairs system to conceal wrongdoing and avoid accountability, the
monitor should assume control of these investigations. And the
Professional Standards Board must be transferred to outside
authorities to prevent Arpaio from tainting proceedings with bias
and favoritism, the memo states.

The ACLU also asked the court for new deadlines, to be enforced by
fines and other sanctions, to keep Arpaio from dragging his heels.

Among other things, it recommends imposing a supervisor-to-deputy
ratio of 1:8 to ensure supervisors have time to read daily
reports, review traffic stop data, and evaluate deputies for signs
of racial profiling; maintain accurate data on civilian
complaints; make it easier to file complaints by establishing a
24-hour hotline in English and Spanish; and impose disciplinary
measures on officers who harass complainants or deliberately log
complaints incorrectly.

Due to Arpaio's primary role in flouting Judge Snow's injunction,
the ACLU wants him to spend $300,000 of his own money to create a
compensation program for victims of his office's racial profiling
and of his contempt of court, including $200,000 for outreach and
a $1,500 minimum award to those unlawfully detained.

The ACLU said it is unlikely that all of Arpaio's victims can be
found and properly compensated, so it asked for the criminal
referral.

Attorneys Daniel Pochoda and Brenda Furnish with the ACLU's
Arizona office did not immediately return emailed requests for
comment on May 31.

The case captioned, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants., CV-07-2513-
PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.).

     Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
     Nida Vidutis, Esq.
     ACLU Foundation
     Immigrants' Rights Project
     39 Drumm Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 343-0775
     Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
     E-mail: cwang@aclu.org
        nvidutis@aclu.org

          - and -

     Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
     Brenda Munoz Furnish, Esq.
     ACLU Foundation of Arizona
     3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
     Phoenix, AZ 85014
     Telephone: (602) 650-1854
     Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
     E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org
             bmfurnish@acluaz.org


ARRIUM: Shareholders Mull Class Action Against Former Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Telegraph reports that a group of angry Arrium
shareholders is seeking legal opinion on whether they have grounds
to launch a class action against the company's former management.

Arrium Shareholders United, which has about 70 members, has also
written to KordaMentha, which took over as Arrium's administrator
in mid-April, to express disappointment about being "kept in the
dark".

The developments come as state and federal government
representatives met KordaMentha in Adelaide on May 30 to discuss a
co-investment upgrade of the Whyalla steel plant.

"Our group is convinced we have a legal case to be heard which
would also make us creditors, due to the non-disclosure of
Arrium's dire financial position by the company management and
board," ASU co-ordinator Martin Hill said.

"Now the shareholders must sit around with no input while Arrium
gets carved up and sold, leaving us with nothing -- our investment
completely wiped out.  Clearly, the whole scenario is a total
shambles."

Shareholders are not classified as creditors and are unable to
vote on the company's future.  They are the last to receive any
money in an administration and KordaMentha has no obligation to
keep them informed throughout the process.

Mr. Hill bought $157,000 of Arrium shares in January when they
trading around five cents.  By mid-February the price had
collapsed after the company's half-yearly report laid bare its
financial problems.  When Arrium was placed into administration on
April 7 with $4 billion of debt, the shares became worthless.

Mr. Hill said there are numerous examples of mismanagement and
that the group had lodged a formal complaint to the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission.

As part of its obligations, KordaMentha must investigate the
events leading up to the administration.  If evidence of
wrongdoing is found, ASIC is informed and criminal charges could
be pursued.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is working on a shareholder-led class
action against rival Slater & Gordon after its value plunged more
than 90 per cent in 2015.

Arrium administrator Mark Mentha said he was sympathetic to
shareholders, but that it was an "unfortunate fact of life" when a
public company becomes insolvent.

In meetings on May 30, Mr. Mentha will stress to federal and state
government representatives that it is vital the administrator
facilitates Arrium's sale free of any direct government
involvement.  He said anything else would "corrupt the process"
and scare off potential bidders.

KordaMentha is grappling with a situation where potential buyers
are reluctant to come forward until the extent of a government
assistance package is known, while government doesn't want to make
its commitment known until Arrium is out of administration.

"This is the dynamic we find ourselves in," Mr. Mentha said.

"Potential buyers want confidence and transparency, so even if
there's the perception of governments having favorites, how can
they have faith in the process?

"Some potential buyers don't want to be known publicly and one has
told us that don't want a government to leak anything for
political expediency purposes.

"There's definitely a tension and dynamic that needs to be
managed, but working closely together, we can manage that."

Mr. Mentha believes the steelworks won't be sold without
government assistance and that he expects to learn soon of how
much will be put on the table. Industry experts say at least $200
million is needed.

Premier Jay Weatherill said on May 29 that the State Government is
putting the interests of Whyalla front and centre in negotiations.

"Whether this causes friction (with KordaMentha), or not, is not a
concern of mine," he said.


ARTEC CONSTRUCTION: "Loja" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Resurreccion Loja, Fabian Maurad and Buenaventura Zumba,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by Artec Construction And Development, Corp.,
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Artec
Construction And Development, Corp., the Plaintiffs, v. Artec
Construction and Development, Corp., and any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by Artec Construction and
Development, Corp., and Chris Tsetsekas individually, and John Doe
Bonding Companies 1-20, the Defendants, and The New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Defendant
Stakeholder, Case No. 154390/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 24, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid prevailing wages, supplemental benefits
and unpaid overtime compensation which Plaintiffs are statutorily
and contractually entitled to receive for their services performed
at the Public Works Projects.

According to the complaint, Artec failed to pay and/or failed to
ensure that Artec's subcontractors paid Plaintiffs the prevailing
rates of wages and supplements to which Plaintiffs were entitled
for work performed. Artec also failed to pay and/or failed to
ensure that Artec's subcontractors paid Plaintiffs at a rate of
time and one-half of their hourly regular rate of pay when they
performed work in excess of 40 hours in a seven-day work week.

Artec is in the general contractor for the single-family houses
industry in Astoria, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: www.vandallp.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
          MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK
          92-10 Roosevelt Ave.
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Telephone: (718) 565-8500 x4411


AUSTRALIA: To Offer Compensation to Chemotherapy Bungle Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Debelle, writing for The Advertiser, reports that
chemotherapy bungle victims will be offered compensation by the
State Government with Health Minister, Jack Snelling, confirming
this would happen soon.

"We are working on an offer of compensation that should be offered
to the patients and their families and we want to have that offer
out there very soon," Mr. Snelling said.

The victims and families will still need to get legal advice but
the Government will pick up their legal costs if they challenge
the size of the offer

"Of course we encourage patients and their families to seek
independent legal advice, which the state government will pay for
if they feel the offer we will provide is unsatisfactory to them."

No dollar amount has been mentioned yet the Premier
Jay Weatherill will meet relevant officers to start the process.

It comes after bungle victim Andrew Knox on May 31 accused
Mr. Snelling of backing away from a breakthrough offer by
Mr. Weatherill, that compensation would be offered to the ten
patients or their families.

Other Stories

Mr. Snelling said that, like Mr. Weatherill, he wanted
compensation settled quickly.

"I am very, very keen, like the Premier, that these patients be
offered compensation as soon as possible," he said on ABC 891.

But Mr. Knox said Mr. Snelling seemed not to be endorsing a new
approach of going to the victims with an offer of compensation,
instead telling them to mount ten individual claims, each with
their own legal heads of claim.

"The Minister has recanted," Mr. Knox said, after Mr. Snelling
maintained there was "nothing new" in Mr. Weatherill's offer.

Mr. Knox said the Minister was wrong to say there had been ongoing
dialogue between the Government's insurers and the victims.

"We had an email telling us to lawyer up and the verbal advice to
one of us not to put a claim in until you have 'a heads of
claim'," Mr. Knox said

He called on Mr. Weatherill to sit down with the victims or their
families -- two of the ten have died -- and tell them what the
Government planned to do, particularly in the case of Marino man,
Bronte Higham, who has only weeks to live.

Speaking from Kuala Lumpur on May 31, Mr. Weatherill said he would
ask that offers of compensation be made and that a firm timetable
be provided.

The breakthrough follows harrowing evidence on May 31 from victims
of the scandal at the first meeting of the Legislative Council
select committee, which is looking into the chemotherapy bungle
and cover up.

One of the victims, Bronte Higham, who has only weeks to live,
called himself "a dead man walking" and asked for compensation to
be brought forward.

"I don't know when I'm going to fall off the perch," Mr. Higham,
67, told the inquiry. "I don't want my family to have to go for
years asking for compensation. This has been one big stuff-up."

Mr. Higham's wife, Ricki, broke down when she told the committee
how horrific it was to be diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia.
They had gone to Flinders Medical Centre expecting the best
possible care.  "If he'd got the treatment he should have got in
the first place . . ." she said, before stopping in tears.

Andrew Knox, a former industrial advocate who was one of 10 chemo
patients underdosed at FMC, said the committee was the last forum
for the victims seeking accountability.

"This is no normal inquiry . . . this is a matter of life and
death," he said.

Mr. Knox, 67, who was treated with an incorrect chemo dose despite
hospital staff discovering the error in the protocol three days
earlier, said the blunder was not an isolated event and the
committee must act.  "This is the only opportunity any of the
victims have of stopping this happening again," he said. "Without
a strong finding by the committee, it will happen again."

He said Professor Villis Marshall, the head of the independent
inquiry called by Mr. Snelling last year, found in his report
failures of governance and disclosure.

But Prof Marshall confided to him the culture of hidden
responsibility was beyond his power to change.

"If you make a mistake in the world, you stand up and take
responsibility," Mr. Knox said.  "It's the old joke; 'we bury our
mistakes' and that's the truth of it."

Mr. Knox tabled evidence relating to the key players in the
scandal and wants the committee to call senior doctors and
bureaucrats for questioning.  He said highly paid clinicians
failed to follow proper process and had done things a nurse would
have been sacked for.  "These people are not gods," he said.

He said an inquiry by the Australian Health Practitioner
Regulation Agency into eight clinicians was of no use as its
findings were secret.  "Don't for a minute think there is closure
in reporting to AHPRA because there is not," he said.

Mr. Knox said the Health Minister Jack Snelling had been lied to,
and singled out Associate Professor Belinda Moyes, the former
chief executive at southern Adelaide Local Health Network, who he
said told the minister the victims were receiving support.

"Every time the minister or (SA Health chief executive) David Swan
gave a directive, Professor Moyes says 'no bloody way, I'm not
doing that'," he said.

"There was not a shadow of care or concern, it was about risk
management from the outset."

He told the committee Prof Moyes had moved to "greener pastures"
in Geelong where, in March, she was announced as the new chief
executive of Barwon Health.

Mr. Knox said the patients should not have been put in the
position they were left in.

"It's taken no small toll on us and our families to get here
today," he said.

The compensation offer is a breakthrough for victims who had been
told to "lawyer up" and make their claims.

Victim's harrowing testimony

"I'm a dead man walking," relapsed leukaemia patient Bronte Higham
earlier told the parliamentary inquiry into the underdosing of 10
Adelaide patients at the state's two biggest hospitals.

Supported by his wife Ricki, Mr. Higham called on the Premier, Jay
Weatherill, to make an offer of compensation to the families.

"I don't know when I'm going to fall off my perch . . . the man
who can pull strings is the Premier," Mr. Higham said.

Advocate for four of the families, Andrew Knox, who is in
remission but fears a relapse, told the Legislative Council select
committee he and Mr. Higham were told by the State Government's
insurers SAICORP to "lawyer up".

He also suggested SA Health had deliberately kept the 10 families
apart.

"They don't want a class action," he said.

Mr. Knox told the committee, headed by Liberal MLC Andrew
McLachlan, it took a toll on the families to appear at the inquiry
on May 31.

"The way we've been treated is just disgraceful," he said.


AUSTRALIA: Barnaby Comments on Impact of Live Cattle Export Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Bettles, writing for Queensland Country Life, reports that
SKY News broadcaster Paul Murray says Barnaby Joyce was right in
saying the snap suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia
five years ago by the former Labor government prompted an increase
in boat people arriving in Australia.

The Nationals leader was chastised widely for the statements he
made to draw a link between the two highly sensitive political
issues, during the regional leaders' debate in Goulburn.

Mr. Joyce said when Labor closed down the live animal export
industry a lot more people started arriving on boats in Australia,
about the same time, due to the "bad will" it caused with the
Indonesian government.

"I think it's absolutely the case that we created extreme bad will
with Indonesia when we closed down the live animal export," he
said.

On his self-named top rating current affairs program, Mr. Murray
said the Canberra press gallery had put forward one view of the
topic -- but he believed what Mr Joyce said during the debate was
"right".

"There is a correlation between the absurdity of a government's
decision to turn off live exports and Indonesia's convenient
attitude when it comes to people smugglers about how hard do they
crack down on the ports (and) how hard do they actually try to
kill off this trade," he said.

Criticism of Mr. Joyce focused on alleged damaged relations with
Indonesia but Mr. Murray said an Indonesian government minister
had actually promised a "tsunami of boats" if Australia continued
to displease them about the executions of convicted drug
traffickers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, in 2015.

He said on one hand Australia was "terrible" for suggesting a
connection between the live exports ban and increased boat
arrivals but on the other hand the Indonesian government itself
had made a threat to send more asylum seekers.

Mr. Joyce clarified his comments when speaking to media after the
live debate against Labor Shadow Agriculture Minister Joel
Fitzgibbon and Greens leader Richard Di Natale, saying the number
of asylum seekers from Indonesia prior to the ban was 14,000 but
40,000 turned up in Australia afterwards.

"Obviously it didn't help our capacity in how we negotiate with a
country when we've just shut down one of their prime mechanisms of
getting protein into their diet," he said.

Within a fortnight of becoming Prime Minister after the 2013
federal election, Tony Abbott led a delegation to Indonesia with
Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop and Trade and Investment
Minister Andrew Robb.

Mr. Robb welcomed Indonesia announcing 75,000 head of cattle for
the final quarter of 2013 following the visit but stressed more
work was needed to repair damaged relations after Labor's
"knee-jerk ban" in June 2011.

After a $1 billion class action claim was announced in late 2014
by producers and industry members seeking to recover losses,
Mr. Abbott told a joint party room meeting in Canberra that
Labor's live cattle trade suspension was perhaps the worst
decision any Australian government had ever made.

Commenting on the class action claim being lodged in court at the
time, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said "perhaps we should have
done things differently then".

"But he said, "Today we can be proud that Australia's world-
leading animal welfare system has put the trade on a sustainable
footing, giving us opportunities to grow and reach new markets".

On Mr. Joyce's comment during the regional leaders' debate,
Mr. Shorten said the National party leader was "loose and
dangerous".

"I just think the guy's talking rubbish," he said while agreeing
there was no correlation between the two issues.

Mr. Shorten said at no stage, until the leaders' debate, had
anyone, "even our worst critics" tried to link the two issues.

"I think it's a really, really ignorant remark," he said.

"You know, it's one thing if he (Mr Joyce) wants to have a fight
with Johnny Depp about, you know, his wife's dogs Boo and Pistol,
that sort of just makes us a figure of fun," he said.

"But when he starts weighing into foreign policy, I think he
should best leave that to the grown-ups in the room.

"Who benefits from what Barnaby Joyce is saying other than Barnaby
Joyce?

"This is about politics.

"It's not about good, sensible policy, relations with Indonesia,
the live export trade or tackling people smugglers."

Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said Mr. Joyce's comments
would not damage relations between the two countries, after she
contacted her Indonesian counterpart and Australian ambassador to
Indonesia to clear the air.

She said "The Deputy Prime Minister's comments have been clarified
and we work very closely with Indonesia - we are working with them
as we both seek to disrupt the people smuggling trade".

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said there was no link between the
Indonesian government and people smuggling and he counted
Indonesian President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo as a "good friend" and
"a great leader".

He said relations between Australia and Indonesia have never been
better than they are today.

"What we have had to do is recover a lot of damage that was done
to our relations by the Labor government when they precipitously
and suddenly stopped live cattle exports to Indonesia," he said.

"That did enormous damage to the cattle industry across Australia
but it was an incredible affront to Indonesia.

"Now the only point that I want to stress is that our cooperation
with Indonesia, in terms of stopping people smuggling, is very,
very strong -- they are as committed to stopping that trade as we
are.

"Most Australians I think were horrified by that live cattle ban,
not least because of what it did to farmers in Australia and
cattle producers, beef producers here in Australia -- but it was
also an outrageous affront to Indonesia.

"And we should treat our neighbors, our friends, and neighbors,
with respect and I do and we do -- we have a good relationship
with them."

Senior Liberal minister Christopher Pyne said Mr. Joyce was merely
pointing out that under Labor "we had two catastrophic
relationship breakdowns with Indonesia".

"One of course was the disastrous ending of the live cattle
exports market, which hurt Indonesia and it hurt Australia, cost
us jobs, and did lasting damage and second of course was opening
up the borders again to people smugglers," he said.

"Now Labor knows that they had a weak policy on border protection
in the last government, they're now trying to pretend they have
the same policy as we (do)."

Senior Labor MP Anthony Albanese said Mr. Joyce tried to draw a
link between the two issues but was "caught out" and "exposed what
a risk it is to have such an erratic maverick as the Deputy Prime
Minister of Australia".

"He should stick to worrying about Pistol and Boo -- that's been
the highlight of his career -- picking on little puppies," he said
of biosecurity issue over the illegal importation of Johnny Depp's
pet terriers.

Quizzed about his comments again, Mr. Joyce said the issue was
"quite clear".

"You don't try and fix one problem, which was the problem of
people coming in here under their own arrangements by boat, by
creating another one, which was the banning of the live cattle
trade," he said.

"You don't fix one problem by creating another one."

Resources and Northern Australia Minister Josh Frydenberg said
Mr. Joyce was "making the obvious point".

"You don't go and insult a most important and critical neighbor
such as Indonesia by undermining their food security by banning,
after a television show, a $1.5 billion industry that creates
10,000 jobs -- most of which are in northern Australia, many of
whom are indigenous," he said.

"What he's made clear is the live animal export policy that the
Gillard Labor government introduced, the ban on live animal
exports, was a disaster at the same time that we were seeking
greater cooperation from Indonesia on the very difficult
diplomatic and strategic issue of border protection.

"Now, we've cleaned up both issues -- we have ensured that the
live animal export trade continues to strengthen and we provide
food security to Indonesia.

"And -- we've also got much better cooperation from Indonesia
we've been successful in stopping the boats when Labor was very
unsuccessful."

But Animals Australia spokesperson Lisa Chalk attacked Mr. Joyce's
comments as being "ridiculous" while minimizing the trade
suspension as having only been for five weeks, rather than a total
ban -- despite the order being for up to six months originally.

"Barnaby Joyce has once again shown that he will say anything to
defend and promote the live export industry," she said.

"It was a five week suspension to put safeguards in place so no
further animals suffered the same horrific abuse exposed on Four
Corners.

"It's remarkable to suggest he would not have supported the same
course of action."

Ms Chalk accused Mr. Joyce of falsely claiming the five week
suspension damaged industry because since then "cattle exports
have risen".

She also rejected suggestions the suspension cut off Indonesia's
food supply saying live exporters loaded boats with cattle before
the Four Corners May 30, 2011 broadcast.

"Barnaby Joyce would serve their interests far better by reminding
them that in 2011 an outraged Australian community demanded the
entire trade be ended and that they were fortunate that only a
short five week suspension resulted," she said.


BACK-IN-GEAR INC: "Avelar" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ramon Avelar and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Back-In-Gear, Inc., A Action Better
Built Transmissions, Inc., Leslie Merritt, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-21822-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2016) seeks all overtime
wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees and any other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a transmission installer and
claims to have been denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


BANK OF AMERICA: Philadelphia City Files Anti-Trust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The City Of Philadelphia, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America Corporation,
Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital
Inc., BNP Paribas, S.A., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Citigroup,
Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Limited, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG,
Credit Suisse International, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. , Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Bank USA,
Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P., Goldman Sachs
International, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Securities
(USA) Inc., Icap Capital Markets LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities PLC, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley Capital Services LLC,
Morgan Stanley Derivative Products Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
International PLC, Morgan Stanley Bank International Limited, The
Royal Bank Of Scotland Group PLC, Royal Bank Of Scotland PLC, RBS
Securities Inc., Tradeweb Markets LLC, UBS AG and UBS Securities
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05409 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2016),
seeks treble damages and injunctive relief for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are the primary incumbent dealers of interest rate
swaps in the United States and collectively dominate the market.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in
the market for interest rate swaps lack the price transparency and
effective competition of accepting bids and offers from anonymous
market participants to match that of willing buyers and sellers at
a competitive real-time price.

The Defendants are represented by:

     George A. Zelcs, Esq.
     Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
     Chad E. Bell, Esq.
     KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
     205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: 312-641-9750
     Facsimile: 312-641-9751
     Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
            rewing@koreintillery.com
            cbell@koreintillery.com

          - and -

     William J. Leonard, Esq.
     OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
     Centre Square West
     1500 Market Street, 34th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Tel: 215-665-3146
     Fax: 215-665-3165
     Email: wleonard@obermayer.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Boni, Esq.
     Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
     John E. Sindoni, Esq.
     BONI & ZACK LLC
     15 St. Asaphs Road
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Tel: (610) 822-0200
     Email: mboni@bonizack.com
            jsnyder@bonizack.com
            jsindoni@bonizack.com

          - and -

     Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
     Robert E. Litan, Esq.
     Robert King, Esq.
     KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
     One U.S. Bank Plaza
     505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Telephone: 314-241-4844
     Facsimile: 314-241-3525
     Email: stillery@koreintillery.com
            rlitan@koreintillery.com
            rking@koreintillery.com

          - and -

     Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
     Kate Lv, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     707 Broadway, Suite 1000
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619-233-4565
     Facsimile: 619-233-0508
     Email: cburke@scott-scott.com
            klv@scott-scott.com

          - and -

     David R. Scott, Esq.
     Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
     Sylvia Sokol, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Chrysler Building
     405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10174
     Telephone: 212-233-6444
     Facsimile: 212-223-6334
     Email: david.scott@scott-scott.com
            dbroggi@scott-scott.com
            ssokol@scott-scott.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Guzman, Esq.
     Derek T. Ho, Esq.
     KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
     Sumner Square, 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
     Washington, DC 20036
     Email: mguzman@khhte.com
            dho@khhte.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq.
     Matthew Duncan, Esq.
     Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
     FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
     1 South Broad St., 23rd Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Tel.: (215) 567-6565
     Email: jistvan@finekaplan.com
            mduncan@finekaplan.com
            apessin@finekaplan.com


BAR CHATEAU: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Calif. Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZOE CHAO, SYDNEY CROSKERY, APRIL MCCULLOUGH, ELIZABETH MCGEEVOR,
NATASHA DANIELS and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. BAR CHATEAU MARMONT, LLC, CHATEAU HOLDINGS, LTD.,
CHATEAU HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL, B.V., HOTELS AB, LLC, BALAZS
INVESTORS, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC
621584, (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County), alleges that Defendants
have denied employees meal and rest periods in violation of the
California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare
Commission.

BAR CHATEAU MARMONT LLC (doing business as THE BAR AT CHATEAU
MARMONT) is full-service restaurant in Los Angeles City.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joel H. Siegal, Esq.
     Richard L. Richardson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JOEL H. SIEGAL & ASSOCIATES
     235 Montgomery St., Suite 800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: 415.651.1949
     Fax: 415.777.5247
     E-mail: richard@rrichardsonlaw.com


BHP BILLITON: Investors File Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that investors
are suing a global resources company and certain of its current
and former officers over claims they made false statements about
the company's commitment to safety.

Jackson County Employees' Retirement System, individually and for
all others similarly situated, filed a class-action lawsuit Feb.
24 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against BHP Billiton Limited, BHP Billiton PLC, Jac Nasser, Andrew
Mackenzie, Peter Beaven and Graham Kerr, alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act.

The suit states that on Nov. 5, 2015, a tailings dam owned by
Brazilian mining company Samarco Mineracao S.A. failed, flooding
60 million cubic meters of land with tailings believed to be
contaminated with arsenic, lead, chromium and other heavy metals,
and destroying the indigenous town of Bento Rodrigues.

BHP allegedly owns a 50 percent interest in Samarco, which has had
to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to the Brazilian
government and is expected to suspend mining operations for
several years, with remediation costs expected to exceed $1
billion, the suit states.

The defendants allegedly knew about and disregarded the precarious
condition of the dam and Samarco's tailings facilities, and,
during the class period from Sept. 25, 2014, to Nov. 30, 2015,
they allegedly made materially false and misleading statements
about BHP's commitment to safety and implementation of safety and
monitoring protocols.

When the truth about BHP's operations was revealed after the
Samarco disaster, the suit states that the price of BHP's American
Depositary Receipts declined significantly, damaging investors.

The plaintiff and others in the class seek a jury trial,
compensatory damages, attorney fees, and other costs of the suit.
They are represented by attorneys Samuel H. Rudman, David A.
Rosenfeld, Joseph Russello -- jrussello@rgrdlaw.com -- and Michael
G. Capeci -- mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd in Melville, New York; and Thomas Michaud --
tmichaud@vmtlaw.com -- and Jack Timmony -- jtimmony@vmtlaw.com --
of Vanoverbeke Michaud & Timmony in Detroit.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:16-CV-01445-NRB


BMW: Electric Car Dangerous, Calif. Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that BMW electric car drivers with "range anxiety" -- the fear
that the electric charge will run out -- sued the company in a
federal class action in San Diego, claiming that the "range
extenders" it sells can cause a car to decelerate suddenly from
freeway speed to 15 mph.

Lead plaintiff Dean Rollolazo says the range extender for the BMW
i3 REx model kicks the car into "limp mode," causing it to
suddenly, and dangerously, lose power.

"The people I have talked to express extreme fear when it
happens," plaintiffs' attorney Thomas Loeser told Courthouse News
on May 31.

"If you can imagine driving on a freeway in Los Angeles and then
suddenly your car decelerates to 15 miles per hour, it can be a
harrowing experience. Or if you are going up a hill and the car
slows down to 5 miles per hour. These cars have different modes of
operation and the range extender causes them to go all the way
down to super economy mode, and when it does that, the car
essentially becomes a golf cart."

The 59-page lawsuit claims BMW markets its range extender to
assuage drivers' range anxiety.

The range extender is a two-cylinder, 650cc gas engine that powers
a generator that keeps the battery charged so the car can continue
to operate on electricity. It comes on automatically when the
battery level sinks to 6.5 percent, and is supposed to extend the
car's range from 81 miles per charge to 150 miles per charge.

The brochure for BMW's 2014 i3 REx states that the range extender
"adds peace of mind by helping to eliminate range anxiety when
charging stations are not readily available."

But Rollolazo et al. say the extenders do nothing of the kind,
because they kick the vehicle into limp mode, causing a "sudden,
severe and dangerous loss in power because the range extender does
not produce enough power for the vehicle to maintain normal
performance."

"Drivers who experience this phenomenon describe it as 'dangerous'
and 'a hazard,' recalling situations where other vehicles had to
swerve around to avoid a collision," according to the May 26
lawsuit. "One driver experienced a total inability to accelerate
when attempting to pass another driver on a two-lane road with
rolling hills."


According to an article in autoblog.com, Consumer Reports
discovered the problem, and autoconnectedcar.com addressed the
problem in an article titled "Why I'm Returning My BMW i3 After
Three Months."

The plaintiffs say the National Highway Traffic Administration
database contains "scores" of similar complaints describing
"harrowing" limp mode experiences.

A BMW representative did not immediately return a phone call
seeking comment May 31.

According to The Economist, better lithium batteries and more
high-voltage charging stations are needed before consumers feel
comfortable straying too far from home, "especially on dark, cold,
wet nights because switching on de-misters, heaters, wipers and
headlights will all use up more juice."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction, and
damages for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unfair
competition, consumer law violations, false advertising, deceptive
business practices, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract
and unjust enrichment, plus a recall or free replacement program.

Attorney Loeser is with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, in Seattle.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Apple" Lawsuit Over Pradaxa(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARY APPLE, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH; Defendants,
(Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, May 24,
2016), alleges violation of the Connecticut Product Liability Act
and the Connecticut General Statutes over Defendant's promotion of
Pradaxa(R), a direct thrombin inhibitor.

Boehringer Ingelheim, one of the US top pharmaceutical companies,
develops and manufactures popular over-the-counter and
prescription drug products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
     MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
     3 North Second Street, Suite 300
     St. Charles, IL 60174
     Phone: 630-232-6333
     Fax: 630-845-8982
     E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 7 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
Seven class action lawsuits have been filed against
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH,
in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District.

The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety
of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use,
and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless
disregard for patient safety, in violation of the Connecticut
Products Liability Act.

According to the complaints, the Defendants negligently designed
and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling,
prescribing information and patient medication guide which
rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM),
throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent
platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood
clot.

The seven cases are:

-- Dwight Albus, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, filed May 24, 2016.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

              - and -

         Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
         MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
         3 North Second Street, Suite 300
         St. Charles, IL 60174
         Telephone: (630) 232 6333
         Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
         E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com

-- Mary Apple, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, filed May 24, 2016.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

              - and -

         Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
         MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
         3 North Second Street, Suite 300
         St. Charles, IL 60174
         Telephone: (630) 232 6333
         Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
         E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com

-- Mary Baker, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, filed May 24, 2016.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

              - and -

         Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
         MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
         3 North Second Street, Suite 300
         St. Charles, IL 60174
         Telephone: (630) 232 6333
         Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
         E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com

-- Lula Hoover, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, filed May 24, 2016.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

-- James Bauer, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, filed May 24, 2016.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

              - and -

         Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
         MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
         3 North Second Street, Suite 300
         St. Charles, IL 60174
         Telephone: (630) 232 6333
         Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
         E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com

-- Joy Beaulieu, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, filed May 24, 2016.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

              - and -

         Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
         MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
         3 North Second Street, Suite 300
         St. Charles, IL 60174
         Telephone: (630) 232 6333
         Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
         E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com

-- Eugene Roberto, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, filed May 24, 2016.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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


BRASKEM S.A.: Petrochem Workers Union's Suit in Progress
--------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that all lawsuits filed by
the Union of Workers in the Petrochemical and Chemical Industries
in Triunfo (RS) are in progress with the Superior Labor Court and
Management expects them to be judged in 2016. No judicial deposit
or other form of security was accrued for these claims.

The Company said, "In late September 2010, we received notice that
a lawsuit had been commenced against our company by the
Petrochemical Industry Workers' Union of Triunfo (Sindicato dos
Trabalhadores das Ind£strias Petroqu¡micas de Triunfo) alleging
that we had violated an agreement regarding payment of overtime at
our Triunfo basic petrochemicals plant. The suit claims damages of
R$338.0 million, retrospectively revised by inflation and the
benchmark rate. We have presented our defense to the court and
have received a favorable decision by the higher labor court,
which the Petrochemical Industry Workers' Union of Triunfo has
appealed. We believe that the likelihood of loss in this suit is
possible."

"The Petrochemical Industry Workers' Union of Triunfo filed
similar claims in the second quarter of 2005 claiming overtime
payment in the amount of R$840.0 million. The parties have entered
into a settlement agreement on April 2015, pursuant to which
Braskem paid R$48.0 million between June and December 2015,
extinguishing to two claims. As of the date hereof, only one claim
was pending of R$20.0 million."

Class actions filed by the Union of Workers in the Petrochemical
and Chemical Industries in Triunfo (RS) in the third quarter of
2010 claiming the payment of overtime referring to work breaks and
integration into base salary of the remunerated weekly day-off
amounting to R$338 million. The Management of the Company does not
expect to disburse any amounts upon their closure.

The claims are being analyzed by the Superior Labor Court, and the
appeal against the motions by the Union were not accepted. The
Company expects the cases will be granted a final and unappealable
decision in the last quarter of 2016. No judicial deposit or other
form of security was accrued for these claims.


BRASKEM S.A.: Securities Case Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs were
expected to file an amended complaint in May 2016.

In July of 2015, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  The lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated under the caption In re Braskem, S.A. Securities
Litigation, No. 15-cv-5132 (the "Securities Action").  On November
6, 2015, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Action filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which asserts claims under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's
ADRs from June 1, 2010 to March 11, 2015.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants are liable for making misrepresentations and
omissions that allegedly concealed a purported scheme by which the
company allegedly made improper payments in order to receive
favorable naphtha pricing from Petrobras. The company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on December 21, 2015 and intends
to defend against the litigation vigorously.

The Company said the plaintiffs were expected to file an amended
complaint in May 2016.

The Company said, "The outcome of the litigation is not possible
to predict. It is possible that we will become party to additional
lawsuits. In addition, we are generally obligated, to the extent
permitted by law, to indemnify our directors and officers who are
named defendants in these lawsuits. The action requires
significant management time and attention. In addition, we may be
required to pay judgments or settlements and incur expenses that
could have a material and adverse effect on our financial
condition or results of operations."


BURGERS & CUPCAKES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Sanchez, Marcos Fernandez, Nicolas Armando, Baldomero
Perez, and Alejandra Garcia, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members, the Plaintiffs, v.
Burgers & Cupcakes LLC d/b/a Burgers & Cupcakes, Mitchel London
Inc. d/b/a Mitchel London Foods, Mitchel London, and Carmela
London, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03862 (S.D.N.Y., May 24,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid minimum
wage and wages to compensate for Defendants' policy of time-
shaving, plus equal amount as liquidated damages, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully violated
Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights by failing to pay them
overtime compensation at the rate of not less than one and one-
half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in each workweek. The Defendants also failed to
properly notify employees of their hourly pay rate and overtime
rate, in direct violation of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Xee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: info@leelitigation.com


C & C PRODUCTS: Faces "Cardona" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE WILMER CARDONA, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. C & C PRODUCTS, INC., MICHAEL L
CAISSIE, and LEO J CAISSIE, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-21875-CMA
(S.D. Fla., May 24, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

C & C Products, Inc. manufactures and specializes in custom design
casino furnishings and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016, that in the case, Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision
Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, the final approval
hearing on the settlement is scheduled for September 12, 2016.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.  After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible
set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.

On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the District Court
issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2
monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and
related state common law claims to proceed.  Cablevision's answer
to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.

On December 7, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, which is subject to approval by the Court. On December
11, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement, conditional certification of the settlement class,
and approval of a class notice distribution plan.

On March 10, 2016 the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and approved the class notice distribution plan.
Distribution of class notice is proceeding. The final approval
hearing on the settlement is scheduled for September 12, 2016.

In the quarter ended September 30, 2015, the Company recorded
estimated charges associated with the settlement totaling $12,800,
of which $9,500,000 is reflected in selling, general and
administrative expense, and $3,300,000, representing the cost of
benefits to class members that are reasonably expected to be
provided, is reflected as a reduction to revenue, net. It is
possible that the amount ultimately paid in connection with the
settlement could exceed the amount recorded.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sought Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016, that in the case, In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation,
the Company has sought leave of Court to file its own summary
judgment motion.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract.

The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10,
2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on
December 13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment.

On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of
class notice, and on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice
distribution plan. The class notice distribution has been
completed, and the opt-out period expired on February 27, 2015.
Expert discovery commenced on May 5, 2014, and concluded on
December 8 and 28, 2015, when the Court ruled on the pending
expert discovery motions.

On January 26, 2016, the Court approved a schedule for filing of
summary judgment motions. Pursuant to the Court's order,
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on March 31, 2016,
and the Company sought leave of Court to file its own summary
judgment motion.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.


CANADA: SOPAC Disappointed Over Moose-Collision Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Pennell, writing for The Telegram, reports that a
representative of the Save Our People Action Committee (SOPAC) is
expressing their disappointment that the lawyer of a class-action
lawsuit for victims of moose-vehicle collisions has had an appeal
rejected.

"It was a big disappointment.  A very, very big disappointment,"
says SOPAC secretary Linda Bishop.

St. John's lawyer Ches Crosbie launched the class action against
the Newfoundland and Labrador government in 2011 representing more
than 100 moose-vehicle collision victims.

He found out that his appeal fell on deaf ears with the panel
concluding that while the public does have a right to drive on
highways that aren't crawling with moose, the financial burden
that occurs when such collisions take place isn't the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador's responsibility.

That conclusion disappointed SOPAC members, including Ms. Bishop.

"What we're saying is how can the driving public be responsible
for moose that are permitted to roam the highway without
precautions and a moose is so quick and jumps out so that you
don't have a choice," says Ms. Bishop.

Ms. Bishop speaks with the experience of someone who knows what
it's like to hit a moose.  She struck an animal 11 years ago on
the Goulds bypass road as she was driving to work at night.

"I could not avoid it and I was not speeding," she says.

"My spine burst and I had back surgery.  Now I have rods and
screws in my back that cause me pain problems everyday."

SOPAC is constantly in touch with government about new measures it
can take to prevent moose accidents.  The group supported the
removal of two test detection systems that were tried on the
Trans-Canada Highway near the Salmonier Line and Grand Falls -
Windsor after they were obviously failing, arguing in favour of
fencing instead.  Fencing on the west coast of the island
installed in a small area has been much more successful, says
Ms. Bishop.

"We're getting rave reviews on that, even from calls from the RCMP
with pictures saying the moose is on the right side of the fence."

The group wants to see fencing put up along much more or even all
of the TCH across the province.  It hasn't been given any
indication of that being a government plan, although members are
trying to get another meeting with Transportation and Works
Minister Al Hawkins.  They also have a meeting with Environment
and Conservation Minister, Perry Trimper, about moose management
plans.

"All we know from what they've done so far is decrease a 100 and
some odd licenses which we were very disappointed about,"
Ms. Bishop says.

Ms. Bishop adds that they do have a commitment from Service NL to
include a pamphlet on the moose-highway issue when they mail out
info on moose licenses each year and also a commitment that such
info will be placed around the province in areas such as tourist
chalets.

With the financial constraints evident in the 2016 budget,
Ms. Bishop knows moose fencing might not be on the very top of
government radar right now, but it's still SOPAC's priority.

"I know there's financial restraints, but we're looking at
people's lives here."

The group would like to see five kilometers of highway a year
fenced in known moose hotspots.


CHH BEAUTY: "Frazier" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Yongsuk Pak Frazier Individually, and on behalf of all others
Similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHH Beauty, Inc., Chong Hwang,
KYOUNG HWANG, individually and as Former Director and Trustee of
JK Beauty, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01554-TDC (D. Md.,
May 20, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, liquidated damages, statutory
attorney fees and the costs of bringing this action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Employers each own a store by the name of Super Beauty or Beauty
Island located at 1121 E. University Boulevard, Takoma Park,
Maryland and 6230 Central Avenue, Seat Pleasant, Maryland.

Frazier worked as assistant Wig Manager and was denied overtime
pay as well as social security contributions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy D. Rachlin, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Katz, Esq.
      3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 800
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Tel: (240) 743-5410
      Fax: (301) 951-0147
      Email: jeffrey@jdkatz.com
             jeremy@jdkatz.com


CHICAGO, IL: Women Firefighters Graduate Following Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Hope, writing for abc7 Chicago, reports that some of the 70
candidates who were set to graduate on May 31 from the Chicago
Fire Academy are making history as women in their 40s and 50s.

If you didn't catch that, this class of candidates from the
Chicago Fire Academy is done!

Joy erupts after completing the academically challenging and
physically grueling six-month training.  But perhaps none as
joyful as those who waited 20 years for this.

"It was tough but I expected it to be tough and I want to be tough
because I want to be ready," said candidate Gail Morris.

Twelve of the candidates who were set to graduate on May 31
applied to be firefighters in 1995.  The women were part of two
class action lawsuits: one for racial discrimination and another
for gender discrimination.  With the lawsuit settlements, they
finally got their chances to be firefighters.

"I believe the only limitations are the ones you put on yourself.
Although we are a little older, it is very exciting.  We welcome
the change," said candidate Shirley Crane McCall.

"This is an opportunity to show African-American women and all
females that you can do this.  We can do this at our ages.  At 19,
20, 21-years-old you can definitely do it," said candidate Monica
Allen.

And ready they are.  These strong women in their 40s and 50s
holding their own with the younger candidates.

"I feel good. I feel great," said Ms. Allen.

After graduation the women will be on probation for a year as
candidate firefighters.  Some may not be working for very long
because, per department policy, the mandatory retirement age for
firefighters is 63.

Per the lawsuit settlement, when the women do retire they will
have the seniority as if they had started working years ago.

There were 52 who were part of a class action suit claiming that
Chicago Fire Department testing discriminated against women.  Not
everyone was interested in proceeding and some did not pass the
tests.  Twelve women remain and will now represent the class
working for the CFD.


CIGNA CORP: Bid to Remove "Kucharski" Suit D. Conn. Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
A petition has been filed seeking removal to the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut of the case
captioned  Arthur Kucharski, derivatively and on behalf of Cigna
Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Eric J. Foss, Roman Martinez IV,
William D. Zollars, David M. Cordani, Isaiah Harris, Jr., Jane E.
Henney, John M. Partridge, James E. Rogers, Joseph P. Sullivan,
Eric C. Wiseman, Donna F. Zarcone, Michelle D. Gass, and Thomas A.
Mccarthy, Defendants and Cigna Corporation, Nominal Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00780.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants caused Cigna to make
purportedly materially false and misleading statements concerning
its business, operational and compliance policies, particularly
the appeals and grievance procedures for Cigna-HealthSpring's
Medicare and Prescription Drug Program.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric P. Smith, Esq.
      FAXON LAW GROUP, LLC
      59 Elm St.
      New Haven, CT 06510
      Tel: (203) 624-9500
      Fax: (203) 624-9100
      Email: esmith@faxonlawgroup.com

          - and -

      Joel T. Faxon, Esq.
      Eric P. Smith, Esq.
      FAXON LAW GROUP, LLC
      59 Elm Street
      New Haven, Connecticut 06510

The Defendant is represented by:

      Thomas J. Finn, Esq.
      Paula Cruz Cedillo, Esq.
      MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
      185 Asylum Street
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Tel: (860) 275-6700
      Fax: (860) 724-3397
      Email: tfinn@mccarter.com

          - and -

      Andrew W. Stern, Esq.
      Dorothy J. Spenner, Esq.
      James O. Heyworth, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      787 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel.: (212) 839-5300
      Fax: (212) 839-5599
      Email: astern@sidley.com
             dspenner@sidley.com
             jheyworth@sidley.com


CITY PASS: "Lam" Sues Over Deceptive Ads
----------------------------------------
Jaime Lam, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. City Pass, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02577
(E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, restitution and all
other forms of equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief,
reasonable attorney fees and expenses and costs of suit under the
New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, New York Gen. Bus. Law.

CityPASS is a ticket booklet which offers admissions to six
attractions in New York City, including the Metropolitan Museum of
Art.

Defendant allegedly utilized misleading, deceptive and false
advertisements, internet marketing and sales to come up with a
phantom 40-42% discount over regular admission prices of tickets
sold.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      Shanshan Zheng, Esq.
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: 212-465-1188
      Fax: 212-465-1181


COLLECTO INC: Faces "Tala" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Collecto Inc. The case is
captioned Anthony Tala, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Collecto Inc., d/b/a EOS
CCA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02476 (E.D.N.Y., May
16, 2016).

Collecto operates as a debt management and recovery resource
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 339 0856
          Facsimile: (347) 244 7178
          E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


COOK MEDICAL: "Homes" Suit Transferred to Indiana Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Olenda Homes, individually and as a representative of all
similarly situated persons v. Cook Medical Incorporated, a/k/a
Cook Medical, Inc., Cook Incorporated, William Cook Europe ApS,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06033-RLY-TAB (W.D. Ky., May 6, 2016), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Indiana on May 20, 2016, Case No. 5:16-cv-66-GNS.

Cook is a manufacturer, distributor and marketer of medical
devices, including the Cook Celect Vena Cava Filter, a device
designed and manufactured to prevent pulmonary embolism. The Cook
Filter is designed to filter blood clots.

Plaintiff suffered chronic low back pain that progressively
increased causing the Plaintiff to have significant dyspnea with
exertion and a near syncopal episode allegedly caused by the
tilting of her Cook Filter resulting in acute deep vein thrombosis
in the left lower extremity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
      Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
      BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
      601 Washington Street
      P.O. Box 1876
      Paducah, KY 42001
      Tel: (270) 442-1422
      Fax: (270) 443-8788


CUMULUS MEDIA: Still Defends ABS Entertainment Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company still
defends the case by ABS Entertainment, Inc.

The Company said, "In August 2015, we were named as a defendant in
two separate putative class action lawsuits relating to our use
and public performance of certain sound recordings fixed prior to
February 15, 1972 (the "Pre-1972 Recordings"). The first suit, ABS
Entertainment, Inc., et. al. v, Cumulus Media Inc., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California and alleges, among other things, violation of
California rights of publicity, common law conversion,
misappropriation and unfair business practices. On December 11,
2015, this suit was dismissed without prejudice.

"The second suit, ABS Entertainment, Inc., v. Cumulus Media Inc.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and alleges, among other things, common law
copyright infringement and unfair competition. The New York
lawsuit has been stayed pending an appeal before the Second
Circuit involving unrelated third-parties over whether the owner
of a Pre-1972 Recording holds an exclusive right to publicly
perform that recording under New York common law.  The pending
suit seeks unspecified damages.

"The Company is evaluating the suit, and intends to defend itself
vigorously. The Company is not yet able to determine what effect
the lawsuit will have, if any, on its financial position, results
of operations or cash flows."


DENSO CORP: "Adams" Sues Over Overpriced Ceramic
------------------------------------------------
Ifeoma Adams, Halley Ascher, Gregory Asken, Melissa Barron,
Kimberly Bennett, David Bernstein, Ron Blau, Tenisha Burgos, Kent
Busek, Jennifer Chase, Rita Cornish, Nathan Croom, Lori Curtis,
Jessica Decastro, Theresia Dillard, Alena Farrell, Jane
Fitzgerald, Carroll Gibbs, Dori Gilels, Jason Grala, Ian Groves,
Curtis Gunnerson, Paul Gustafson, Tom Halverson, Curtis Harr,
Andrew Hedlund, Gary Arthur Herr, John Hollingsworth, Leonard
Julian, Carol Ann Kashishian, Elizabeth Kaufman, Robert
Klingler, Kelly Klosterman, James Marean, Michelle McGinn, Rebecca
Lynn Morrow, Edward Muscara, Stacey Nickell, Sophie O'keefezelman,
Roger Olson, William Picotte, Whitney Porter, Cindy Prince, Janne
Rice, Robert Rice, Jr., Frances Gammell-Roach, Darrel Senior,
Meetesh Shah, Darcy Sherman, Erica Shoaf, Arthur Stukey, Kathleen
Tawney, Jane Taylor, Keith Uehara, Michael Wick, Phillip Young, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Denso
Corporation, Denso International America, Inc., NGK Insulators
Ltd., NGK Automotive Ceramics USA, Inc., Corning International
Kabushiki Kaisha and Corning Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-11804-VAR-DRG (E.D. Mi., May 20, 2016), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief resulting from unfair
competition, unjust enrichment, and for consumer protection under
Section 16 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Law.

Defendants manufacture and supply ceramic substrates globally and
in the United States. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids, and
allocate the market and customers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Hollis Salzman, Esq.
     Bernard Persky, Esq.William V. Reiss
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 980-7400
     Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
     Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
            BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com
            WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 651-9366
     Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
     Email: clangham@susmangodfrey.com


DOLAR SHOP: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against The Dolar Shop Restaurant Group,
LLC. The case is captioned Chen Lin, Jianqun Zhang, Di Pan, and Bo
Liu, Jialiang Pan on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Dolar Shop Restaurant Group, LLC,
doing business as: Dolar Shop, Yu Zhang, Tzu Cheung also known as
Ken Cheung, Xin Feng Wang also known as Ruby Wang, and Ying Nan Qi
also known as Frank Qi, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02474
(E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2016).

The Defendant is a buyer or importer of restaurant supply.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


E&M BRONX: Faces New York Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
USVALDO CONTRERA and FRANCISCO LOPEZ, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IRVING LANGER,
LEIBEL LEDERMAN, ARYEH Z. GINZBERG, MEYER BRECHER, E&M BRONX
ASSOCIATES LLC a/k/a E&M ASSOCIATES and a/k/a E&M Holdings, E&M
ASSOCIATES LLC, E&M HARLEM HOLDINGS LLC, E&M HARLEM EQUITIES LLC,
E&M LAFAYETTE PORTFOLIO LLC, E&M LAFATEYETTE OWNER LLC, RAINBOW
ESTATES LLC, MANHATTANVILLE HOLDINGS LLC, GALIL REALTY LLC, GALIL
MANAGEMENT LLC, E&M 116TH STREET LLC, E&M 3600 BROADWAY LLC, E&M
48-53 LLC, E&M ACP PORTFOLIO LLC, E&M DUNBAR LLC, GALIL 102
CONVENT LLC, GALIL 102 CONVENT OWNER LLC, GALIL 3621 OWNER LLC,
GALIL 519 POTFOLIO LLC, GALIL 519 PORTFOLIO OWNER LLC, GALIL
SULLIVAN LLC, 102 CONVENT OWNER LLC, 105-109 WEST 113 LLC, 107
WEST 113 LLC, 1070 OGDEN LLC, 109 WEST 113 LLC, 11 WEST 172 STREET
OWNER LLC, 110 WEST 116TH LLC, 113-115 WEST 113 LLC, 115 WEST 113
LLC, 117-129 WEST 116 LLC, 120-129 WEST 112 LLC, 124 WEST 112
STREET LLC, 126 WEST 112 LLC, 131-133 WEST 112 LLC, 133 WEST 112
STREET LLC, 133-135 WEST 116 LLC, 138 WEST 112 STREET LLC, 141
WEST 113 LLC, 141 WEST 116 LLC, 141-143 WEST 113 LLC, 143 WEST 111
STREET LLC, 143 WEST 113 STREET LLC, 145-153 EDGECOMBE HOLDINGS
LLC, 146 WEST 111 STREET LLC, 151 WEST 228 ST OWNER LLC, 153 LENOX
HOLDING LLC, 159 W 228 ST OWNER LLC, 161-171 MORNINGSIDE LLC, 1631
GRAND AVE OWNER LLC, 164-172 WEST 141 HOLDINGS LLC, 17-25 ST
NICHOLAS LLC, 1728-1730 AMSTERDAM AVENUE LLC, 1786 TOPPING AVE
OWNER LLC, 1829-1835 7 LLC, 2006 ACP BLVD PORTFOLIO LLC, 2059 8
LLC, 2076-78 CRESTON AVE OWNER LLC, 2238 MORRIS AVE OWNER LLC, 226
W TREMONT AVE OWNER LLC, 2291 UNIVERSITY AVE OWNER LLC, 230 WEST
116 LLC, 2322 GRAND AVE OWNER LLC, 239 WEST 116 LLC, 241 WEST 113
LLC, 243 WEST 116 LLC, 247-253 WEST 116 LLC, 255 WEST 116 LLC,
2755-61 SEDGWICK AVE OWNER LLC, 2925 GRAND CONCOURSE OWNER LLC,
2933 GRAND CONCOURSE OWNER LLC, 2968 PERRY AVE OWNER LLC, 300 WEST
114-2107 8 LLC, 301 WEST 111-2051 8 LLC, 302 WEST 112 STREET LLC,
303 WEST 111 LLC, 303-309 WEST 113 LLC, 305 WEST 111 LLC, 305-309
WEST 113 LLC, 306-310 WEST 112 LLC, 307 WEST 113 LLC, 310 WEST
112TH STREET LLC, 311 WEST 111 STREET LLC, 337 WEST 138 HOLDINGS
LLC, 345 MANHATTAN HOLDINGS LLC, 35 MORNINGSIDE HOLDINGS LLC, 350
WEST 115 LLC, 370-372 WEST 127 LLC, 373 WEST 126 LLC, 376 WEST 127
LLC, 41 W 184 ST OWNER LLC, 510 WEST 146 LLC, 521-523 W 156 ST
OWNERS LLC, 557-561 WEST 149 HOLDINGS LLC, 6 MORNINGSIDE LLC, 609-
619 WEST 135 STREET OWNER LLC, 610-620 WEST 141 HOLDINGS LLC, 617
WEST 143 HOLDINGS LLC, 638 WEST 160 HOLDINGS LLC, 655 WEST 160
HOLDINGS LLC, 65-67 LENOX LLC, 67 LENOX LLC, 707 ST NICHOLAS LLC,
ACP BLVD PORTFOLIO LLC, AUDOBON 550 W 171 PORTFOLIO LLC, AVENUE W
EQUITIES LLC, DDEH 319 E 115 LLC, E&M ASSOCIATES I, LLC, MANHATTAN
VALLEY WEST LLC, NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION ASSOCIATES I, L.P.,
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION ASSOCIATES II. L.P., NSA ASSOCIATES I,
NSA ASSOCIATES II, SARASOTA GOLD LLC, SIXTH AVENUE I ASSOCIATES,
SIXTH AVENUE REHAB I ASSOCIATES, SUNSET PARK HOUSING ASSOCIATES,
SUNSET PARK NSA I, SUNSET PARK N S A II, SUNSET PARK NSA 11,
SUNSET PARK NSA 2, SUNSET PARK NSA II, 260 ELIZABETH STREET LLC,
262 ELIZABETH PORTFOLIO LLC, 264 ELIZABETH STREET PORTFOLIO LLC,
266 ELIZABETH STREET PORTFOLIO LLC, 268 ELIZABETH STREET HOLDINGS
LLC, 17-25 ST NICHOLAS LLC, 1728-1730 AMSTERDAM AVENUE LLC, 1786
TOPPING AVE OWNER LLC, 1829-1835 7 LLC, 2006 ACP BLVD PORTFOLIO
LLC, 2059 8 LLC, 2076-78 CRESTON AVE OWNER LLC, 2238 MORRIS AVE
OWNER LLC, 226 W TREMONT AVE OWNER LLC, 2291 UNIVERSITY AVE OWNER
LLC, 230 WEST 116 LLC, 2322 GRAND AVE OWNER LLC, 239 WEST 116 LLC,
241 WEST 113 LLC, 243 WEST 116 LLC, 247-253 WEST 116 LLC, 255 WEST
116 LLC, 2755-61 SEDGWICK AVE OWNER LLC, 2925 GRAND CONCOURSE
OWNER LLC, 2933 GRAND CONCOURSE OWNER LLC, 2968 PERRY AVE OWNER
LLC, 300 WEST 114-2107 8 LLC, 301 WEST 111-2051 8 LLC, 302 WEST
112 STREET LLC, 303 WEST 111 LLC, 303-309 WEST 113 LLC, 305 WEST
111 LLC, 305-309 WEST 113 LLC, 306-310 WEST 112 LLC, 307 WEST 113
LLC, 310 WEST 112TH STREET LLC, 311 WEST 111 STREET LLC, 337 WEST
138 HOLDINGS LLC, 345 MANHATTAN HOLDINGS LLC, 35 MORNINGSIDE
HOLDINGS LLC, 350 WEST 115 LLC, 370-372 WEST 127 LLC, 373 WEST 126
LLC, 376 WEST 127 LLC, 41 W 184 ST OWNER LLC, 510 WEST 146 LLC,
521-523 W 156 ST OWNERS LLC, 557-561 WEST 149 HOLDINGS LLC, 6
MORNINGSIDE LLC, 609-619 WEST 135 STREET OWNER LLC, 610-620 WEST
141 HOLDINGS LLC, 617 WEST 143 HOLDINGS LLC, 638 WEST 160 HOLDINGS
LLC, 655 WEST 160 HOLDINGS LLC, 65-67 LENOX LLC, 67 LENOX LLC, 707
ST NICHOLAS LLC, ACP BLVD PORTFOLIO LLC, AUDOBON 550 W 171
PORTFOLIO LLC, AVENUE W EQUITIES LLC, DDEH 319 E 115 LLC, E&M
ASSOCIATES I, LLC, MANHATTAN VALLEY WEST LLC, NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION ASSOCIATES I, L.P., NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION
ASSOCIATES II. L.P., NSA ASSOCIATES I, NSA ASSOCIATES II, SARASOTA
GOLD LLC, SIXTH AVENUE I ASSOCIATES, SIXTH AVENUE REHAB I
ASSOCIATES, SUNSET PARK HOUSING ASSOCIATES, SUNSET PARK NSA I,
SUNSET PARK N S A II, SUNSET PARK NSA 11, SUNSET PARK NSA 2,
SUNSET PARK NSA II, 260 ELIZABETH STREET LLC, 262 ELIZABETH
PORTFOLIO LLC, 264 ELIZABETH STREET PORTFOLIO LLC, 266 ELIZABETH
STREET PORTFOLIO LLC, 268 ELIZABETH STREET, Case 1:16-cv-03851,
(S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

E&M Associates is a privately-held, vertically-integrated real
estate company that acquires, owns and manages over 3000
apartments in the New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
     RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Penn Plaza
     250 West 34th Street, Suite 2430
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 382-1600


EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lied About New Drug, Investors Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that shareholders claim Eagle Pharmaceuticals misled investors
into believing that its blood-thinner drug Kangio would win
government approval, causing its shares to fall 18 percent when
the truth came out.

Blake Bauer is a shareholder of Eagle Pharmaceuticals, a company
specializing in injectable medications.

Last year, Eagle submitted a new drug application to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration for its drug Kangio, a blood-thinning
medication intended to prevent blood clots in patients undergoing
heart surgery.  With the same active ingredient as the drug
Angiomax, Kangio would have been one of the first generics on the
market to benefit from Angiomax's loss of exclusivity rights in
2014.

In the following months, Eagle repeatedly stated that it had every
expectation that the FDA would approve Kangio for public sale, and
was preparing to ship early in the second quarter.  But instead of
an approval letter, Eagle received a response in March withholding
approval pending "further characterization of bivalirudin-related
substances in the drug product."

Eagle's share price fell about 18 percent from $53.68 to $43.50 on
the news. It has since bounced back somewhat, trading at $48.23 on
June 1, afternoon.

In 2015, Eagle shares performed extremely well, and the company
was placed second on GEN Magazine's list of top 10 Wall Street
winners of 2015.

Bauer says Eagle and CEO Scott Tarriff should be held liable for
"participat[ing] in a continuous course of conduct to conceal
adverse material information about the business and future
prospects of Eagle Pharmaceuticals."

"Defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts set forth herein, or acted with
reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain
and to disclose such facts, even though such facts were available
to them," according to a class-action lawsuit Bauer filed June 31.

Bauer is represented by Thomas W. Elrod with Kirby McInerney in
New York.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals did not immediately return a request for
comment.


ELPIDA LLC: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Pursuant to FLSA, Ohio Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany L. Huff (728 North Trimble Rd. Mansfield, Ohio 44906)
and Heather Hoffman (326 Hammond Ave. Mansfield, Ohio 44902)
and Da'ton Stormer (126 Poplar St., Apt. 4 Mansfield, Ohio 44903)
and Mary B. Cerreto (1171 Seminole Ave. Mansfield, Ohio 44906),
Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elpida, LLC (308 East Main St.
P.O. Box 3125 Lexington, Ohio 44904) Also serve statutory agent
at: Elpida, LLC (c/o Benjamin G. Hollinger P.O. Box 539 Lucas,
Ohio 44843) and Benjamin G. Hollinger, individually (308 East Main
St. P.O. Box 3125 Lexington, Ohio 44904), Case: 1:16-cv-01239
(N.D. Ohio, May 23, 2016), was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Elpida, LLC is a home care staffing agency of direct care workers
for the developmentally disabled in need of assistance.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

        - and -

     Peter Contreras, Esq.
     CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
     PO Box 215
     Amlin, OH 43002
     Phone: 614-787-4878
     Fax: 614-923-7369
     E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


EPIC SYSTEMS: Arbitration Provision Violates NLRA, 7th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit, affirmed the district court's denial on
defendant-appellant's motion for arbitration, in the case JACOB
LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant-
Appellant, No. 15-2997 (7th Cir.)

Epic Systems Corporation, a health care software company, sent an
email to its employees that contained an arbitration agreement
mandating that wage-and-hour claims could be brought only through
individual arbitration and that the employees waived the right to
participate in or receive money or any other relief from any
class, collective, or representative proceeding. The agreement
also contains a provision that, employees deemed to have accepted
the agreement if they continued to work at Epic. The email
requested that recipients review the agreement and acknowledge
their agreement by clicking two buttons.

Jacob Lewis, then a technical writer at Epic, signed the
agreement. However, Lewis had a dispute with Epic, and he did not
proceed under the arbitration clause. Instead, he sued Epic in
federal court, contending that it had violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. and Wisconsin law
by misclassifying him and his fellow technical writers and thereby
unlawfully depriving them of overtime pay.

Epic moved to dismiss Lewis's claim and compel individual
arbitration. Lewis responded that the arbitration clause violated
the NLRA because it interfered with employees' right to engage in
concerted activities for mutual aid and protection and was
therefore unenforceable. The district court agreed and denied
Epic's motion. Epic appeals.

Chief Judge Woods affirmed the district court's denial of Epic's
motion to compel arbitration.

A copy of Chief Judge Wood's opinion dated May 26, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/Ie5sHZfrom Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit panel consists
of Chief Judge Diane P. Wood Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner
and District Judge John Robert Blakey.


EQUIFAX INC: Sued in N.D. Ga. Over Data Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Betzalel Yochanan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., and Equifax
Workforce Solutions, a/k/a Talx Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01687-MHC (N.D. Ga., May 24, 2016), seeks to recover
damages, including actual and statutory damages, equitable relief,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other compensatory damages,
credit monitoring services with accompanying identity theft
insurance, and injunctive relief including an order requiring
Equifax to implement improved data security measures.

On May 5, 2016, employees of Kroger and its affiliated companies
(Krogers) were advised that Equifax, which provides online access
to electronic W-2 forms for Kroger and other groups of companies,
was the subject of a data breach, in which unauthorized
individuals accessed Equifax's W2-Express website (Data Breach).
Kroger has advised that it believes the unauthorized individuals
who accessed the W2-Express website have already used information
gained in the breach, including names, addresses, Social Security
numbers, alternative identification numbers, wage information,
employment information, and other personal information, to file
fraudulent tax returns.

The lawsuit accuses the consumer credit bureau of negligence after
a data breach disclosed the personal information of a group of
Kroger grocery store workers.

Mr. Yochanan seeks to represent more than 431,000 of the chain's
staff whose personal information may have been hacked, according
to Law 360.

The suit argues that Equifax did not have appropriate or effective
measures in place to protect against unauthorized access to
confidential consumer data, the legal website adds.

Equifax is one of the major credit reporting agencies in the
United States. As a credit bureau service, Equifax is engaged in a
number of credit-related services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222 2434
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  rsoffin@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          James A. Barry, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
          801 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 663 8200
          Facsimile: (856) 661 8400


EROS INTERNATIONAL: "Abram" SEC Complaint Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Abram, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eros International PLC, Rishika Lulla,
David Maisel, Dilip Thakkar, Naresh Chandra, Sunil Lulla, Vijay
Ahuja, Andrew Heffernan, Prem Parameswaran, Jyoti Deshpand and
Kishore Lulla, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03772-UA (D.N.J. Ill.,
November 17, 2015), was transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on May 20, 2016.

Eros allegedly feigned its reported finances that resulted in the
drop in share prices upon disclosure.

Eros produces, acquires, and distributes Indian language films in
various formats worldwide. The Company is incorporated in Isle of
Man and maintains its U.S. executive offices in Secaucus, New
Jersey.

Kishore Lulla is the Company's Executive Chairman. He served as
director since 2005 and was the Company's Chief Executive
Officer from June 2011 to May 2012.

Jyoti Deshpande is the Company's CEO since June 2012.

Prem Parameswaran is the Company's Chief Financial Officer and has
served in that role since June 2015.

Andrew Heffernan is the former CFO of Eros, having served in that
role from 2006 to June of 2015.

Vijay Ahuja is the Company's Vice Chairman and has been a director
since April 2006.

Sunil Lulla, Naresh Chandra, Dilip Thakkar, David Maisel, Rishika
Lulla, Rajeev Misra and Michael Kirkwood are directors of Eros.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 BROAD STREET, SUITE 1201
     NEWARK, NJ 07102
     Tel: (973) 623-3000
     Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

          - and -

     Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     560 SYLVAN AVENUE
     ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ 07632
     Tel: (201) 567-7377
     Fax: (201) 567-7337
     Email: jsarnelli@GARDYLAW.com

          - and -

     Kevin Peter Roddy
     WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.(NJ)
     90 Woodbridge Center Drive
     Woodbridge, NJ 07095
     Tel: (732) 855-6402
     Fax: (732) 855-6117
     Email: kroddy@wilentz.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
     Eleonore Ofosu-Antwi, Esq.
     WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
     One Newark Center
     1085 Raymond Blvd.
     19th Floor
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Tel: (973) 757-1100
     Email: lwalsh@thewalshfirm.com
            eofosuantwi@thewalshfirm.com

FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: "Fleming" Sues Over Shadowy Investments
------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Fleming, Edward R. Haduck and Victoria Wendel,
Plaintiffs, v. Fidelity Management Trust Company, Fidelity
Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10918 (D. Mass., May 20, 2016), seeks
disgorgement of any profits from breaches of fiduciary duty and
prohibited transactions, imposition of constructive trust and/or
equitable lien on any funds, reasonable attorney fees and costs of
suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Defendants provide service platform for the administration of
individual account plans which are tax-qualified retirement plans
maintained by employers for the benefit of their employees.

Katherine Fleming, Edward R. Haduck and Victoria Wendel are
participants in Delta Family-Care Savings Plan.

Defendants are accused of non-disclosure of where the revenue from
the trust sharing payments goes to as well as the nature of asset-
based fee for whatever services provided in connection with
investment advice.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul T. Sullivan, Esq.
      Jeffrey Gordon, Esq.
      ZELLE LLP
      600 Worcester Road, Suite 101
      Framingham, MA 07102
      Telephone: (781) 466-0700
      Facsimile: (781) 466-0701
      Email: psullivan@zelle.com
             jgordon@zelle.com

          - and -

      Christopher Micheletti, Esq.
      Heather T. Rankie, Esq.
      ZELLE LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 633-1912
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
      Email: cmicheletti@zelle.com
             hrankie@zelle.com

          - and -

      Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      John J. Nestico, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Telephone: (480) 428-0145
      Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
      Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

          - and -

      Todd Schneider, Esq.
      Mark Johnson, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
             mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com

          - and -

      Todd S. Collins, Esq.
      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Email: tcollins@bm.net
             scarson@bm.net
             enoteware@bm.net


FITBIT: Says Study Used in Fitness Tracker Class Action Biased
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Kizer, writing for The Daily News, reports that wearable
fitness trackers, such as the popular Fitbit, aren't always
accurate, as a Ball State study found.  But since earlier this
year, the Fitbit company has been facing a lawsuit due to these
inaccuracies.

Ball State's study, released from Ball State's Clinical Exercise
Physiology Program, found activity trackers tend to underestimate
steps -- from 20 to 90 percent -- for lifestyle activities such as
cleaning, sweeping or picking things up around the house.

An underestimation of a workout seems better than the alternative,
but that's not what the Fitbit company is facing a lawsuit for.

Along with the inaccuracy in the counting of steps, another study
done by researchers at Cal Poly Pomona says Fitbit's heart rate
calculations are inaccurate as well.

The study said the heart rate technology currently available for
the trackers does not provide a valid measurement of a user's
heart rate and, especially during high intensity exercise, cannot
be used to provide a meaningful estimate of their heart rate.

However, Consumer Reports tested the heart rate accuracy of the
Charge HR and Surge after the initial lawsuit was filed in January
and gave both products an "excellent" rating.

The lawsuit, filed the Bylieff Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein
law-firm, calls the Fitbit devices defective.  It was filed on
behalf of people who bought these Fitbits specifically for the
heart rate detecting technology and were disappointed to find it
didn't seem accurate.

According to the firm's press release, Fitbit customer and
plaintiff Kate McLellan tried other courses of action before
reaching out to create a lawsuit.

"Fitbit's ads made it clear that that is precisely what the Heart
Rate Monitors are supposed to do.  But in my experience, they do
not, and when I complained to Fitbit, they refused to refund my
money," Ms. McLellan said.  "I brought this case because the
Fitbit Charge HR that I bought does not accurately and
consistently track my heart rate during intense exercise, and
because Fitbit refused to stand behind its promise."

The class-action lawsuit argues specifically the "PurePulse
technology," used to measure heart rate, is not accurate, like the
study says, but it also doesn't do it as well as the company's
marketing material promises, a claim the Fitbit company denies.

A spokesperson from Fitbit said that they believe that the study
used in the lawsuit is biased, and that it doesn't provide exact
evidence.

"[The study] lacks scientific rigor and is the product of flawed
methodology," the spokesperson said.  "It was paid for by
plaintiffs' lawyers who are suing Fitbit, and was conducted with a
consumer-grade electrocardiogram -- not a true clinical device, as
implied by the plaintiffs' lawyers."

According to Fitbit, their research team researched and developed
PurePulse technology for three years prior to introducing it to
market and continues to conduct internal studies to test the
features of our products.

The technology is used in the more expensive models of the device
-- the Surge, Blaze and Charge HR.

The firm is using the latest research as a basis for the lawsuit,
and even created an amended complaint on May 19 with the study as
evidence.

Cal Poly Pomona researchers Edward Jo and Brett A. Dolezal tested
43 healthy subjects with the Fitbit Surge and Charge HR in
"structured laboratory-based and less structured free-living
exercise tasks."

The subjects, both male and female, were hooked up to a previously
validated and calibrated heart rate measurement system and were
also using the Fitbit Charge HR and the Fitbit Surge.

The subjects were assigned to perform exercise tasks that were
reflective of activities presented in Fitbit advertisements, such
as a self-paced jog, jump roping and jogging on a treadmill for
five minutes each while heart rate data from the three devices.

The study said during moderate to high intensity exercise, the
Charge HR recorded a heart rate that differed from the validated
machine by an average of 15.5 bpm, and the Surge recorded a heart
rate that differed from the validated machine by an average of
22.8 bpm.

Ball State's Alex Montoye, a clinical exercise physiology
professor who led the first study, previously said whether
consumers are using a high-end tracker like those being addressed
in the lawsuit or more basic ones that his research analyzed, the
technology is the same and will produce inaccurate results.

However, he said they still get people moving and can be a helpful
motivational tool.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Boulange" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to E. D. Penn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Boulange, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Flowers Foods, Inc., and Flowers
Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-1681,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for District of New
Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The Eastern District Court assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-02581-JD to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is
Hon. Jan E. Dubois.

Flowers Foods markets baked foods under such brands as Nature's
Own and Whitewheat.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC
          715 Twining Rd Ste 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
                  pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark Diana, Esq.
          Robin Koshy, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK
          & STEWART, P.C.
          10 Madison Ave, Suite 400
          Morristown, NJ 07205
          Telephone: (973) 656 1600
          E-mail: mark.diana@odnss.com


FNB: Forensic Science Expert Mulls Class Action Over Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------------
MyBroadband reports that forensic science expert Dr. David Klatzow
recently told The Star he is planning a class action lawsuit
against FNB for the "systematic failure by the bank to properly
represent its customers' interests in online banking fraud cases."

Speaking to MyBroadband, Mr. Klatzow said FNB is putting its
clients at risk by sharing their banking details with third
parties.

He said this includes the bank sharing sensitive banking
information about its clients with "investment advisers".

This, said Mr. Klatzow, is potentially one of the ways criminals
gain access to information needed to steal money from FNB's online
banking clients.

He said there are either employees in FNB who assist criminals or
there is negligence from the bank for these crimes to be
committed.

"The simple fact that so many people get defrauded is a clear
indication that FNB is not doing enough to protect its clients
against online banking fraud," said Mr. Klatzow.

FNB not honest

Referring to a case he investigated where money was stolen from
Cape Town audiologist Gail Jacklin's account, Mr. Klatzow said the
bank was not honest.

He told MyBroadband that FNB claimed Ms. Jacklin was the victim of
a phishing attack, which makes her responsible.

However, Mr. Klatzow said the forensic evidence showed that
Ms. Jacklin's details were not stolen in a phishing attack,
raising questions as to where the criminals got her details from.

FNB offered Ms. Jacklin a partial refund, if she was willing to
sign a confidentiality agreement and admit responsibility.

When Mr. Klatzow demanded to see proof from FNB about its claims,
the bank offered a full refund, but only if she "acceded to a
confidentiality agreement and exonerated FNB from culpability".

He said during one of the conversations Ms. Jacklin had with FNB,
an agent said the FNB platform was compromised.  However, this
person has now disappeared from the scene.

"We need to get behind the cover-ups and evasions and the refusals
by the banks to play open cards around online banking fraud," Mr.
Klatzow told The Star.

Class action lawsuit against FNB

Mr. Klatzow said the class action lawsuit is aimed at forcing FNB
to provide full refunds, with damages, to clients who have been
victims of online banking fraud.

He said FNB currently offers clients a partial refund, with many
conditions attached, which is not good enough.

He said while FNB is the first bank which will have to face the
music, other banks are set to follow.

FNB responds

FNB said the article in The Star referred to an incident which
impacted a client in early January.

"Evidence, including malware, confirms the client's computer was
compromised and the OTP sent to her mobile number was entered,"
said FNB.

"The bank agrees with its customers not to disclose details of
investigations as the information is sensitive and proprietary.
Our relations with our customers remain confidential between the
bank and its customers."

FNB said it is not aware of a class action lawsuit planned against
it.


FOOTBRDIGE COMPANIES: "Danos" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Danos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. The Footbrdige Companies, LLC, d/b/a
Footbridge Energy Services and Exterran Energy Solutions, L.P.
Defendants., Case No. 2:16-cv-00652-CRE (W.D. Pa., May 20, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and
Massachusetts Wage Laws.

FootBridge is an energy services company providing personnel to
operators and other energy services companies throughout the
United States, including in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

Exterran is a global oil and gas services provider operating
worldwide and throughout the United States, including
Pennsylvania. Exterran contracted FootBridge to provide employees
to perform the necessary work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 766-1455
      Fax: (412)766-0300
      Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Homestead Sue over Overpriced Alum
------------------------------------------------------------
City of Homestead, Florida, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Chemical Corporation,
General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc.,
Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics Inc.,
Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC., Geo
Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC,
Kemira Chemicals, Inc., Frank A. Reichl; Brian C. Steppig, Vincent
J. Opalewski and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
02873-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., May 20, 2016), seeks permanent enjoinment,
damages, monetary relief, treble damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and reasonable attorney fees for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the
Clayton Act 15 U.S.C.

City of Homestead, Florida is a Florida municipality located in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. It purchased liquid alum for purposes
of wastewater treatment.

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

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

Brian C. Steppig was director of sales for water treatment
chemicals of GEO Specialty Chemicals. Vincent J. Opalewski was
vice president of sales and marketing of Kemiron Chemicals Inc.
now Kemira Chemicals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USALCO, LLC is a privately held Maryland corporation with its
principal place of business at 2601 Cannery Avenue, Baltimore,
Maryland. USALCO manufactures and distributes aluminum-based
chemical commodities to the industrial and municipal markets in
the North America.

Kemira Chemicals, Inc. is a publicly held Georgia corporation with
its principal place of business at 1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite
500, Atlanta, Georgia. It manufactures, formulates and supplies
specialty and process chemicals for paper, water treatment,
mineral slurries and industrial chemical industries in North
America and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William L. Mentlik, Esq.
      LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ &MENTLIK, LLP
      600 South Avenue
      West Westfield, NJ 07090-1497
      Tel: 908.654.5000
      Fax: 908.654.7866
      E-mail:wmentlik@lernerdavid.com
             litigation@lernerdavid.com

          - and -

      William L. Mentlik, Esq.
      Jay B. Shapiro, Esq.
      Samuel O. Patmore, Esq.
      Jason P. Hernandez, Esq.
      Abigail G Corbett, Esq.
      Maria A. Fehretdinov, Esq.
      Molly J. Bowen, Esq.
      STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &SITTERSON, P.A.
      150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: 305.789.3200
      Fax: 305.789.3395
      E-mail: jshapiro@stearnsweaver.com
              spatmore@stearnsweaver.com
              jhernandez@stearnsweaver.com
              acorbett@stearnsweaver.com
              mfehretdinov@stearnsweaver.
              mbowen@stearnsweaver.com

          - and -

      Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
      Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
      Andrew Szot, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: 312.332.3400
      Fax: 312.676.2676
      E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
              aszot@millerlawllc.com
              mvt@millerlawllc.com

          - and -

      Richard M. Kerger, Esq.
      KERGER & HARTMAN, LLC
      33 S. Michigan Street, Suite 100
      Toledo, OH 43604
      Tel: 419.255.5990
      Fax: 419.255.5997
      E-mail:rkerger@kergerlaw.com


GREEN DOT: "Lewis" Suit Asserts Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------
Jason Lewis, Danielle Hall and JC Montgomery, on behalf themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Green Dot
Corporation, Green Dot Bank, Mastercard Incorporated and
Mastercard International Incorported, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-03557 (S.D. Tex., May 19, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive
relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, conversion and violation of the False Advertising Act,
California Unfair Business Practices Act and California Business
and Professions Code.

Defendants are accused of denying account holders the ability to
obtain funds in their accounts and misappropriating funds held in
their Walmart MoneyCard accounts, thus preventing them from
accessing their fund to purchase items as basic as food, clothing
and shelter. They are also accused of unlawfully imposing fees and
charges on Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are holders of a Walmart MoneyCard, a prepaid debit
card promoted, issued and serviced through Defendants' Green Dot
Corporation and Green Dot Bank.

Green Dot Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Pasadena, California. Green Dot Bank is a
federally chartered savings bank with its headquarters in
Pasadena, California.

MasterCard Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated
are Delaware corporation with principal place of business in
Purchase, New York. MasterCard Payment Transaction Services is a
division of MasterCard International Incorporated.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      Email: dcw@mccunewright.com
             rdm@mccunewright.com

          - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
      Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 223-5402

          - and -

      Jean Sutton Martin*
      LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
      2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Tel: (910) 292-6676
      Fax: (888) 316-3489

          - and -

      Thomas B. Malone, Esq.
      THE MALONE FIRM, LLC
      1650 Arch Street, Suite 2501
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (267) 670-0189


JUANA M BRICKELL: Faces "Ballate" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM PADILLA BALLATE, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. JUANA M BRICKELL LLC, JUAN P
ZAMBOTTI, and JUANA MARCELA ODA MARTY, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
21880-DPG, (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2016), was filed pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Juana M. Brickell LLC is in the alcoholic beverages and tobacco
retail business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


KEYSTONE MERCY: Court Upholds Data Breach Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Brotherton, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that
the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently upheld a lower court
decision to reject class-action certification in a data breach
case for a lack of ascertainable loss, but plaintiffs are not
without recourse if the data loss leads to identify theft.

In Baum v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan, et al., the plaintiff
attempted to certify a class of individuals who may have suffered
a privacy loss after the defendant lost a USB flash drive
containing personal information of 286,000 subscribers. In 2013,
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

The case was appealed to the Superior Court, which upheld the
ruling but sent the case back to the lower court to determine if
the case might be able to be class certified based on the claim
under a separate provision of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).

The lower court again denied the class-action certification, and
the plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court again.  In the
second ruling, which was handed down in April, the Superior Court
determined the case fell short of class-action certification.

"The court found that the plaintiff hadn't suffered ascertainable
losses," Brian Willett recently told the Pennsylvania Record. "The
allegations don't reflect that anyone had been the victim of
identity theft.  Once I dug into the facts of the case, I wasn't
(surprised by the ruling).  There was no demonstration of injury
for the plaintiffs."

The plaintiff in the case, Avrum M. Baum, filed suit on behalf of
his minor child.  Mr. Baum brought the case to the court to
protect a class interest, but the trial court ruled that none of
the data on the flash drive could be linked to the plaintiff's
daughter.

"Identify theft is a serious issue, but in Pennsylvania, when a
plaintiff is suing after a data breach under state law, they have
to show reliance," Paul Bond -- pbond@reedsmith.com -- a partner
at Reed Smith, told the Pennsylvania Record.

Reliance is the legal theory where a prudent person acts on the
promise of someone else, particularly in a contract.  In the Baum
case, the defendant promised to protect the individual's data, but
the plaintiff was unable to show where each plaintiff relied on
that promise.

"The plaintiffs probably will not appeal the case, because they
risk a decision that affirms the Superior Court decision," Bond
said.

He said even though the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a
Democratic majority, "privacy issues go beyond party lines."

Although the class-action suit has been denied, "if anyone suffers
an injury from this data breach, there is recovery in individual
litigation, provided an injury can be proved,"
Mr. Bond noted.


LANGSTON CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Record, reports that a construction worker has filed
a class-action lawsuit against his employers alleging employees
were not paid overtime wages.

Bismark Mairena-Rivera filed a complaint on behalf of other
persons similarly situated on May 9 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana against Langston Construction
LLC, Composite Architectural Design Systems LLC and Michael
Langston, alleging that they allegedly violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was not
paid one-and-a-half times of his regular hourly rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.  The plaintiff holds
Langston Construction LLC, Composite Architectural Design Systems
LLC and Langston responsible because the defendants allegedly
treated him as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements and
failed and refused to pay proper overtime compensation.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks declaration that
defendants' conduct violated the FLSA, compensation for unpaid
overtime wages, plus an additional amount in liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and such other general and equitable relief as the court deems
equitable and just.  He is represented by Roberto Luis Costales
and Emily A. Westermeier of Costales Law Office in New Orleans and
William H. Beaumont of William H. Beaumont Law in New Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:16-cv-04493


LAZAR EDIBLES: Faces "Correa" Suit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS CORREA, on behalf of himself, and the Class, Plaintiff, v.
LAZAR EDIBLES, INC. d/b/a LAZAR EDIBLES AT HOLIDAY INN and
ANASTASIOS LAZARAKIS, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-03834 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 23, 2016), seeks to recover remedies pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate a restaurant under the trade name "Lazar
Edibles at Holiday Inn."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


LEONE HALPIN: Faces "Palin" Suit in M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Leone Halpin, LLP. The case is
captioned Tracy Palin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Leone Halpin, LLP, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00369-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 16,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. John E. Steele.

Leone Halpin is a small law firm located at South Bend, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria Alaimo, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          Suite A, 6350 Presidential Ct
          Ft Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334 3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334 7105
          E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com


MAGIC OPERATING: "Diallo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abdoulaye Diallo, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Magic Operating Corp., and
Issac Ginet, the Defendants, Case No. 508648/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
May 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
maximum liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees,
and costs of the action, pursuant to New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiff complains that he is (i) entitled to unpaid overtime
wages from Defendants, individually, and/or jointly, for working
more than forty hours in a week and not being paid at rates not
less than 1.5 times their regular rate for each hour worked in
excess of forty hours in a work week; and (ii) entitled to maximum
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York
Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA), N.Y. Lab. Law, including NYLL.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of providing oil
change and car wash services to the public within the New York
state area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL K. HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


MARGARITAVILLE: "Saunders" Suit Moved to Southern Carolina Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
William K Saunders, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Margaritaville of Myrtle Beach LLC,
the Defendant, Case no. 2016-CP-26-02311, was removed from Horry
County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina of (Florence). The South Carolina
District Court assigned Case no. 4:16-cv-01559-RBH to the
proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. R. Bryan Harwell.

Margaritaville is one of the best restaurants in Myrtle Beach
serving nachos, cheeseburgers, and margaritas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D Michael Kelly, Esq.
          Stephen Glenn Vicari II, Esq.
          MIKE KELLY LAW GROUP
          PO Box 8113
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 726 0123
          Facsimile: (803) 252 7145
          E-mail: mkelly@mklawgroup.com
                  svicari@mklawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          George Alfred Reeves III, Esq.
          FISHER AND PHILLIPS
          1320 Main Street, Suite 750
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 255 0000
          E-mail: greeves@laborlawyers.com


MARS INC: Sued in Calif. Over Uncle Ben's Rice Products Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California man and a New York state woman are suing a rice
products company, alleging its packaging is misleading.

Eric Lankenau-Ray and Carmen Vargas, individually and for all
others similarly situated, filed a class-action lawsuit May 17 in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Mars Inc., whose Uncle Ben's Rice Products are the focus
on the suit.

The suit states that Mars intentionally packages its Uncle Ben's
rice products in boxes that contain up to 50 percent empty space.
Relying on the size of the containers, the suit states, the
plaintiffs paid a premium price for the products, which they would
not purchase if they knew the containers were substantially empty.

The counts against Mars include violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California's False Advertising Law; violation of New York's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and negligent misrepresentation.

Mr. Laukenau-Ray and Ms. Vargas and the class seek orders that
Mars violated those aforementioned laws, actual, compensatory,
special and general damages, prejudgment interest, and other forms
of equitable monetary relief, all to be determined by a jury.

They are represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Andrei Armas of
Kazerouni Law Group APC in Costa Mesa, California and Joshua B.
Swigart of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-02660-JSC


MARTHA GREEN'S: Restaurant Do Offers Rest Break to Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
Acting Presiding Justice Judith L. Haller of the Court of Appeals
of California, Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the order
of the trial court in the case TRISHA LYNN SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. MARTHA GREEN'S DOUGHLECTIBLES, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, No. D069677 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Trisha Lynn Sanchez worked as a waitress for Martha Green's
Doughlectibles, Inc. (MGD) at its restaurant in Redlands,
California, from 2007 to 2012. In early 2013, Sanchez filed a
putative class action asserting violations of the Labor Code,
including claims for failure to offer rest breaks (Lab. Code,
Section 226.7), failure to offer meal periods (Section 226.7),
failure to pay overtime compensation (Section 510), and failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements (Section 226, subd.
(a)). Sanchez also asserted the Labor Code violations supported a
claim under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section
17200 et seq.) and sought to represent all aggrieved employees
under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Section 2698, et
seq.).

In December 2014, Sanchez filed her motion for class certification
of a class she described as consisting of approximately 105 former
and current MGD employees. Sanchez's motion identified three
subclasses: (1) nonexempt hourly employees who were not provided
overtime wages in the four years prior to the date Sanchez's
complaint was filed; (2) nonexempt hourly employees who were not
provided rest and meal periods in the four years prior to the date
Sanchez's complaint was filed; and (3) nonexempt hourly employees
who were not provided with accurate itemized statements in the
four years prior to the date Sanchez's complaint was filed.

MGD filed its opposition to the motion for class certification in
March 2015. In support MGD submitted settlement agreements it had
entered into with 76 of the putative class members after being
served with Sanchez's complaint. Each agreement specifically
referenced Sanchez's claims and contained a statement that the
employee agrees that there is a dispute with MGD as to whether
rest periods, meal periods, overtime pay and accurate itemized
statements were provided in accordance with the law. By signing
the agreement, the individual released his or her claims against
MGD and agreed not to participate in Sanchez's purported class
action in exchange for $150. The agreement stated explicitly there
would be no retaliation or adverse action taken if the employee
chose not to sign the agreement.

MGD argued in its opposition that as a result of the settlement
agreements, the total number of potential class members was not so
numerous that it was impracticable for each to bring his or her
own claim. MGD also asserted that, in light of the evidence that
there was no uniform policy to prohibit meal and rest breaks,
individual questions predominated over common ones. Sanchez filed
a reply asserting the settlement agreements were invalid under
section 206.5 and therefore class adjudication of her claims was
superior.

The trial court found the settlement agreements were valid and
that certification was not appropriate. The court concluded only
21 putative class members had not settled their claims and,
because of the conflicting evidence on the provision of breaks and
overtime pay, class proceedings were not superior to individual
actions. The trial court also found that because Sanchez had
presented no evidence of a systematic policy of not paying
overtime or giving breaks and the defendant presented evidence
that it did provide the requisite breaks, with pay, Sanchez would
be required to prove each class member's claims on an individual,
and not common, basis. Sanchez timely appealed.

Acting Presiding Haller affirmed the trial court's order.
A copy of Acting Presiding Justice Haller's opinion dated May 26,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/uaaSXwfrom Leagle.com.

Mark Joseph Valencia -- mvalencia@vclitigation.com -- Izabela
Cywinska Valencia -- icywinska@vclitigation.com -- at Valencia &
Cywinska, for Plaintiff and Appellant

Michael G. Kerbs -- mkerbs@rhlaw.com -- at Reid & Hellyer, for
Defendant and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
panel consists of Acting Presiding Judith L. Haller, Justice Joan
Irion and Judge Ronald Prager.


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Continues to Defend Suit in Fresno County
------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit in Fresno County, California.

The Company said, "In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno
Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno
County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case")
alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent
contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a
substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company,
involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The
Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the
State of California in Sacramento County. Both courts have
certified the class in these cases. The class consists of roughly
5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the
Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified
restitution for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the
Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.  In the
Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code."

"The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the
third phase will address restitution, if any. On September 22,
2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a tentative decision
following the first phase, finding that the carriers that
contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from
February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent
contractors. We objected to the tentative decision but the court
ultimately adopted it as final. The court has not yet established
a date for the second and third phases of trial concerning whether
The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in the class for
mileage reimbursement or owes any restitution.

"The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second
phase will address restitution, if any. The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 and
concluded in late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court in the
Fresno case issued a statement of decision granting judgment in
favor of us and The Fresno Bee.

"We continue to defend these actions vigorously and expect that we
will ultimately prevail. As a result, we have not established a
reserve in connection with the cases. While we believe that a
material impact on our condensed consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely,
given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists
that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could
result in future charges that could have a material impact. We
have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of
probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make
appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and
developments in litigation."


MCDONALD'S: Blind Man Files Class Action Over Drive-Thru Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Chicago reports that a blind Louisiana man has filed a class-
action lawsuit against McDonald's, claiming the Oak Brook-based
fast food giant's late-night drive-thru policy discriminates
against those who can't operate a vehicle on their own to satisfy
after-hours cravings once restaurant doors are locked.

Scott Magee filed the suit on May 26 in U.S. District Court in
Chicago, claiming that McDonald's violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act by prohibiting visually impaired pedestrians from
ordering at drive-thru windows after restaurant lobbies are
closed.

Instead, Mr. Magee says, "blind people must hope for a companion
with a car or paid taxi services to assist them in selecting and
purchasing McDonald's food."

McDonald's representatives could not immediately be reached for
comment on May 27.

The suit says that while McDonald's has proved to be an innovative
company -- noting its customizable burger options, two-lane drive-
thrus and, "to the awe of McDonald's aficionados everywhere," an
all-day breakfast menu -- they have shown no "concern whatsoever
for the accessibility of their late night drive-thrus to the
disabled."

When Mr. Magee tried to order on foot late at a McDonald's drive-
thru after the lobby had closed one night in August 2015 near his
home in Metairie, Louisiana, the employees "refused service to
him, laughed, and told him to go away," the suit says.

He suffered the same experience on other occasions and "felt
ashamed of his inability to access the McDonald's services," the
suit says.

The two-count suit seeks "auxiliary aids or services" to
accommodate the blind, plus an unspecified amount of money in
court costs and damages.


METRO TECH: Faces "Blystone" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN BLYSTONE, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. METRO TECH SERVICE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-00942, (M.D. Tenn., May 23,
2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is in the business of providing heating, ventilating,
and air conditioning (HVAC) services to its various commercial
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Russell, Esq.
     Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
     GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: (615) 354-1144
     E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
             eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


MORGAN KEEGAN: Cromeans Asks 8th Cir. to Review W.D. Mo. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John W. Cromeans, Elkton Bank and Trust Company, and
Robert Benisch filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit titled John Cromeans, et al. v. Morgan Keegan & Company,
et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-04269-NKL, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City.

The appellate case is captioned as John Cromeans, et al. v. Morgan
Keegan & Company, et al., Case No. 16-2417, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The Case concerns a 2010 municipal bond offering to finance an
artificial sweetener plant in Moberly, Missouri, to be built and
operated by a company called Mamtek International, according to a
memorandum and order from Leagle.com.  The action is filed against
the underwriter and direct seller of the bonds, and its counsel
Armstrong Teasdale, alleging claims for negligent underwriting,
negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraudulent
misrepresentation and omissions, and violations of Missouri Blue
Sky laws.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Andrew P. Campbell, Esq.
          Caroline Smith Gidiere, Esq.
          John C. Guin, Esq.
          Stephen D. Wadsworth, Esq.
          CAMPBELL & GUIN
          505 N. 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 224-0750
          E-mail: andy.campbell@campbellguin.com
                  caroline.gidiere@campbellguin.com
                  john.guin@campbellguin.com
                  stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com

               - and -

          James Timothy Francis, Esq.
          300 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 251-0252

               - and -

          Richard Earl McLeod, Esq.
          MCLEOD LAW FIRM
          2020 Wyandotte Street
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-5656
          Facsimile: (816) 421-3339
          E-mail: richmcleod@mclaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Morgan Keegan & Company is represented by:

          Lisa Bertain, Esq.
          Bernard Suter, Esq.
          Elyse Whitehead, Esq.
          KEESAL & YOUNG
          450 Pacific Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 398-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 981-0136
          E-mail: lisa.bertain@kyl.com
                  ben.suter@kyl.com
                  elyse.whitehead@kyl.com

               - and -

          Charles W. Hatfield, Esq.
          Erin M. Naeger, Esq.
          Jeremy Root, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          230 W. McCarthy Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101-0000
          Telephone: (573) 636-6263
          E-mail: chuck.hatfield@stinson.com
                  erin.naeger@stinson.com
                  jeremy.root@stinson.com

Defendant-Appellee Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, is represented by:

          Dale C. Doerhoff, Esq.
          Timothy W. Van Ronzelen, Esq.
          Heidi Doerhoff Vollet, Esq.
          COOK VETTER DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR P.C.
          231 Madison Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101-0000
          Telephone: (573) 635-7977
          Facsimile: (573) 635-7414
          E-mail: ddoerhoff@cvdl.net
                  tvanronzelen@cvdl.net
                  hvollet@cvdl.net


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Washington Cty. Suit Moved to W.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
County Of Washington, Pennsylvania, on its own and on behalf of
all similarly situated Pennsylvania Counties, the Plaintiff, v.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Merscorp Holdings,
Inc., Bank of America, N.A., The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank
of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Citibank, N.A.,
Citimortgage, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Finance
Corporation, formerly known as: Household International, Inc.,
JPMORGAN Chase Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., West Penn
Financial Service Center Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2016-1781,
was removed from Common Pleas of Washington County to U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Pittsburgh). The Western District Court assigned Case no. 2:16-
cv-00672-JFC to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Joy
Flowers Conti.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789 3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          Robert J. Larocca, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, PC
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238 1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          Robert N. Peirce III, Esq.
          PEIRCE LAW OFFICES
          707 Grant Street, 2500 Gulf Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281 4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com
                  robpeirce@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429 2290
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          James C. Sargent, Jr., Esq.
          Maureen M. McBride, Esq.
          William H. Lamb, Esq.
          LAMB MCERLANE PC
          24 E. Market Street, P.O. Box 565
          West Chester, PA 19381-0565
          Telephone: (610) 430 8000
          Facsimile: (610) 692 0877
          E-mail: jsargent@chescolaw.com
                  mmcbride@chescolaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 509 5951
          Facsimile: (202) 800 2730
          E-mail: jrathod@wbmllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian J. Willett, Esq.
          Reed Smith, Esq.
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288 3155
          E-mail: bwillett@reedsmith.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Report Critical of Concussion Research Committee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Wildermuth, writing for The Alternative Daily, reports that
the National Football League has been involved in a complicated
dance around the link between brain injury and football for years.
In the latest of a string of unsavory decisions, the league has
pulled $30 million of funding from the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), the government's main medical science agency.  The
money was earmarked for already-approved brain injury research.
While grants were made according to specific guidelines,
apparently the NFL disagreed with who got funded.

The NIH awarded $16 million of the $30 million promised by the NFL
to a research team led by Dr. Robert Stern at Boston University.
Stern's past research found evidence of a link between football
and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a progressive brain
disease associated with brain trauma.  He also wrote an affidavit
in support of NFL players who opposed an NFL class-action
settlement related to brain injury.

A Democratic staff report from the Committee on Energy and
Commerce harshly criticizes the NFL for attempting to direct money
instead to NFL-friendly researchers.  When they were unsuccessful,
the report alleges, funding was pulled.  The NFL counters that
their concerns with Dr. Stern's team were presented through the
appropriate channels.

In a telling interaction between the NFL and NIH, the director of
the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for
the NIH was hardly surprised when the NFL expressed concerns with
Dr. Stern's team.  "Yes, we knew this was coming  . . . Trouble is
of course that the [Stern] group is led by people who first broke
the science open, and NFL owners and leadership think of them as
the creators of the problem."

The NFL's accusation that Dr. Stern's team is biased becomes
almost comical once in context.  The league's own, now-defunct
research team was completely discredited on account of bias and
questionable research methods.  Moreover, the team second in line
for NIH funding consists of researchers affiliated with the NFL's
own Head, Neck and Spine Committee.

NFL in-house concussion committee discredited

The NFL's first response to new research linking brain disease
with football in the 1990s was complete denial.  The league
sponsored their own research team -- the Mild Traumatic Brain
Injury Committee -- to look into the matter.  Their findings,
published in a series of peer-reviewed papers, reported little
evidence of a link between football and brain injury.

Amid public criticism and a congressional hearing in 2009, the
NFL's concussion committee was disbanded.  Chief among complaints
was that the doctors on the committee were NFL-employed doctors.
They were essentially asked to critique their own work.  No
wonder, the public surmised, they found little fault.

Recently, The New York Times delved deeper into research led by
the NFL Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee.  In an independent
assessment of the data set compiled by the committee they found
that roughly 10 percent of players with documented head injuries
had not been included.  This is a serious omission that clearly
impacted study results.

The NFL's go-to excuse, that players were not reporting injuries,
failed to explain the data discrepancy, as cases omitted in the
data had been included in team medical records.

Current conflicts of interest

The recently published congressional report is especially critical
of Dr. Richard Ellenbogen, co-chair of the league's Head, Neck and
Spine Committee:

"Dr. Ellenbogen is a primary example of the conflicts of interest
between his role as a researcher and his role as an NFL adviser,"
the study reports.  "He had been part of a group that applied for
the $16 million grant. After his group was not selected, Dr.
Ellenbogen became one of the NFL's primary advocates in expressing
concerns surrounding the process with the BU grant selection."

Dr. Ellenbogen vehemently denies the allegations: "I never talked
to Congress.  No one ever asked me my opinion.  I had two private
conversations with (NIH Director) Walter (Koroshetz), and this is
a lesson I guess: Big Government can crush you if you disagree
with them."  He maintains that his discussions involving the grant
money revolved around the type of research funded, not the grant
recipients.

The Head, Neck and Spine Committee is tasked with making football
safer for players.  Since Dr. Ellenbogen's appointment the
committee has developed new protocols for identifying and treating
brain injuries on the field and suggested improvements to
equipment.  Committee members have also been instrumental in
advocating for safer procedures in youth sports programs.

Notably, committee members are deemed independent and unpaid.

Does NFL affiliation influence research outcomes?

Though in poor taste, it is neither unusual nor immoral for
researchers to fight for funding.  Scientific inquiry,
unfortunately, is an expensive endeavor.  The real question is
whether an NFL affiliation taints brain injury research outcomes.

At least one scientist answers a resounding "yes."  Dr. Tom
Talavage accepted NFL money in the past, but has since decided to
steer clear.  His reasoning: "A while back, we talked about all
the folks who have ended up on the Head, Neck and Spine Committee,
and we think there's a pretty clear demarcation between the
research they did before they were funded by the league or tied to
the NFL, and the research they did after they were tied to the
league."

Other researchers note that before NFL interest there was
significantly less funding available for traumatic brain injury
research.  Even if the money is a little tight, they argue,
progress is being made.  Research that otherwise would not exist
is being funded and moving forward.

"As a scientist, when you have an interest in a particular
scientific topic, you go to foundations or groups who are
interested in giving money to answer that scientific question,"
Dr. Jennifer Coughlin, a researcher receiving NFL money told ESPN.
"The NIH, until recently, wasn't advertising . . . that they're
interested in this topic."

Notably, the NFL on its own has funded brain injury research to
the tune of millions of dollars.


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Parking Tickets
-------------------------------------------------
Danielle Furfaro and Kevin Fasick, writing for New York Post,
report that drivers fighting parking tickets run into a huge
roadblock if they want to confront their accusers because judges
routinely deny requests to force cops or traffic agents to
testify, a new lawsuit charges.

"It's a kangaroo court," said Glen Bolofsky, president of
ParkingTicket.com, which brought a class-action suit against the
city.  "The public isn't getting a fair shake."

Mary Gotsopoulis, chief judge of the city's Parking Violations
Bureau, told a pretrial hearing in Manhattan Supreme Court that
she knows of no judge who has subpoenaed the ticket issuer in the
10 years she's been on the bench.

Mr. Bolofsky claims he's made more than 5,000 requests for drivers
who would like to see ticket issuers cross-examined in that
period.

"There is no justice in the Parking Violations Bureau,'' he said.

Drivers who can't head down to the courthouse can use a city Web
site to upload evidence of their innocence.  But the site only
accepts between two and five megabytes of data, making it
impossible to upload high-resolution photos.

Drivers say they are fed up with getting bogus tickets and not
being able to confront the people who issued them.

"If you are going to write up the ticket, have the balls to show
up and give me your evidence," said Kenny Childs, who owns an
appliance business in Long Island City and constantly has to fight
tickets issued to his trucks.  "If they are going to write a
ticket, they should stand behind it."

Another driver took it a step further.

"The system is f-ked up. It's fixed," said Keith Roberts.  "The
cop or agent or whoever wrote the ticket doesn't even have to be
there . . . so that shows you right there that it's all about
raising money."

The city declined to comment.

The latest news about the long and winding road to justice came
after The Post, earlier in May, reported that the city collected
more than $4 million in tickets issued to drivers who parked in
front of curb cuts that don't lead to driveways -- even though
that has been legal for more than five years.


NEW YORK: Port Authority Cops File Class Action v. Doctors
----------------------------------------------------------
Kathianne Boniello, writing for New York Post, reports that Port
Authority cops want department doctors to stop poking and prodding
them so much, according to a federal class-action lawsuit.

Officer Joseph Arias of The Bronx was injured on the job last
year, had surgery and was out sick for four months, but was still
required to check in with PA doctors while on medical leave, he
says in Manhattan federal court papers.

PA doctors also took an "extensive family medical history" during
a mandatory the annual medical exam of Officer Christopher Carini,
and then tested his blood without telling him, the suit says.

The Seaford, LI, man was diagnosed with Type II diabetes after the
test.

"It's good information to have, but it wasn't affecting his
ability to do his job, and they didn't get his consent for it.
It's unnerving," said lawyer Christopher Lenzo.

The law forbids employers from conducting annual physical exams of
workers, Mr. Lenzo said.

The lawsuit against the PA seeks an injunction to stop the
excessive testing and intrusive questioning.  The PA did not
return messages.


NISSAN: Drivers File Class Suit in Seattle Over Sunroofs
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that more than 60 Nissan drivers
have complained that their panoramic sunroofs spontaneously
shattered, a class action claims in Seattle, King County Court.


NRG ENERGY: Hearing Held in May on Motion for Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada was scheduled to hear argument on
the defendants' motion for summary judgment in one of the Kansas
cases related to the Natural Gas Litigation.

GenOn Energy is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are
class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas,
Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the
aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the
resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to
increase natural gas prices in violation of state antitrust law
and similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages,
restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a
number of energy companies unaffiliated with NRG.

In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn
in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the decision of the
District Court.

GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
challenging the Court of Appeals' decision and the Supreme Court
granted the petition. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court
affirmed the Ninth Circuit's holding that plaintiffs' state
antitrust law claims are not field-preempted by the federal
Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court left open whether the claims were preempted on
the basis of conflict preemption. The Supreme Court directed that
the case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada for further proceedings.

On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification. On May 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada was scheduled to hear argument on the
defendants' motion for summary judgment in one of the Kansas
cases.

GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses
relating to these lawsuits.

In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which was
handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all
plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs
in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the Supreme Court denied the
petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one of the five
lawsuits.


NRG RESIDENTIAL: TCPA Class Suits Pending in Calif. & N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that three Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Purported Class Actions remain pending
against NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC.

Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG
Residential Solar Solutions, LLC, one in California and two in New
Jersey.  The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by the
call agents and violations of the TCPA, claiming that the
defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited
calls to individuals on the "Do Not Call List." The plaintiffs
seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 per plaintiff, actual
damages and equitable relief. The Company is vigorously defending
against these lawsuits. NRG requested and was granted a stay in
the California case and one of the New Jersey cases pending a
decision of an unrelated case by the U.S. Supreme Court, the
results of which could materially affect these lawsuits. The
Company believes that it has established an adequate reserve for
these cases.


NRG YIELD: Defending Against "Braun" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs filed on
April 19, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit against NRG
Yield, Inc. and against each current and former member of its
board of directors individually in Kern County, CA.  Plaintiffs
allege various violations of the Securities Act due to the
defendants' alleged failure to disclose material facts related to
low wind production prior to the June 22, 2015 Class C common
stock offering.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, rescission,
attorney's fees and costs.


OCWEN LOAN: "Santos" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the Northern District of
California granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
RIZALDE SANTOS, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-01197-PSG (N.D. Cal.)

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by
Rizalde Santos and sought dismissal without leave to amend on all
claims.

Defendants points out that Santos' claims regarding allegedly
force placed insurance, the third through ninth causes of action
in his complaint, as well as portions of the first and second, are
barred by res judicata due to a settlement in a class action,
where Santos was a member of the class. Defendants also argue that
Santos' twelfth cause of action, for injunctive relief, fails to
state a claim because injunctive relief is not a standalone cause
of action.

Magistrate Judge Grewal granted defendants' motion to dismiss but
granted plaintiff leave to amend with respect to the tenth and
eleventh causes of action, as well as plaintiff's first and second
to the extent they do not relate to force-placed insurance. The
remaining claims are dismissed without leave to amend. Any amended
complaint shall be filed within 21 days from the Court's order.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Grewal's opinion dated May 26, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/BDUYlKfrom Leagle.com

Rizalde Santos, Plaintiff, represented by Dean Lloyd --
legaljaws@gmail.com -- at Law Offices of Dean Lloyd

Defendants, represented by Eleanor Morris Miller Roman --
emr@severson.com -- at Severson & Werson


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: March 2017 Trial in KB Partners Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a new trial date, if
necessary, is scheduled for March 2017 in the case, KB Partners I,
L.P., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann and
Peter S. Roddy.

The Company said, "On December 2, 2011, a purported class action
was filed against us and our executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. This complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of
allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made
by us regarding REMOXY's development and regulatory status during
the purported class period, February 3, 2011 through June 23,
2011. The complaint states that monetary damages are being sought,
but no amounts are specified. On June 3, 2013, the Court certified
a class consisting of all purchasers of our common stock and a
class period of December 27, 2010 through June 26, 2011. In a July
7, 2015 order, the Court directed plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint and set a new trial date, if necessary, for March 2017.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 27, 2015."


RAMSBEE CORP: "Meehan" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Meehan, Plaintiff, v. Ramsbee Corporation, and Jeffrey
Beecher, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02874-SDW-LDW
(D.N.J., May 20, 2016) seeks payment of compensation for all hours
worked, as well as overtime due, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney fees, and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage
and Hour Law.

Defendants operates Ramsbee Print, a print shop in the State of
New Jersey, owned by Jeffrey Beecher. Meehan was employed by
Defendants full time as a shop staff. He claims to have been
denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


ROBERSON TIRE: "Henderson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Henderson and Nickolas Grant, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Roberson Tire
Service, Inc. and Mark Roberson, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00283-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and expenses and any
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Roberson Tire Service, Inc., owned by Mark Roberson, operates a
vehicle service shop in Morrilton, Arkansas where Plaintiffs work
changing tires, patching tires, rotating tires, and changing the
oil. They regularly work over 40 hours per workweek, but are not
paid any overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Hollerman, Esq.
     Timothy Steadman, Esq.
     Jerry Garner, Esq.
     HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     1008 West Second Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Tel: 501.975.5040
     Fax: 501.975.5043
     Email: jholleman@johnholleman.net
            tim@johnholleman.net
            jerry@johnholleman.net


SALDIVENA OF BROWARD: "Campos" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ramiro Reyes Campos, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Saldivena of Broward Corporation, Federico Yanez
and Villeda Concrete Finish, Inc, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-
61079-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2016) seeks overtime and/or minimum
wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for SE TexasRecord, reports that a former
wireline operator has filed a class-action complaint against a
Houston employer alleging it failed to pay its employees overtime
wages.

Georg Kinzy filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on May 4 in the Houston Division of the Southern District
of Texas against Schlumberger Technology Corp. alleging violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between May
1, 2010, and Oct. 15, 2014, he worked for more than 40 hours per
work week but was not paid any overtime compensation.  The
plaintiff holds Schlumberger Technology Corp. responsible because
the defendant allegedly failed to pay overtime wages to plaintiff.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks all damages,
interest, all legal fees and any other relief as this court deems
just.  He is represented by John David Hart of Law Offices of John
David Hart in Fort Worth.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number
4:16-cv-01239


SEADOG BREWPUB: "Brown" Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Brown, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SEADOG BREWPUB BV, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and FRED HAYMAN, an individual, Defendants,
Case 6:16-cv-00898-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2016), was brought
to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage and overtime, and
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sea Dog Brewing Company is a restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
     17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
     Miami, FL
     Phone: 305.358.6800
     Fax: 305.358.6808
     E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
             legal@kuvinlaw.com


SHARP HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
East County Magazine, citing Courthouse News, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Sharp Healthcare alleging
that videos taken during surgeries at Sharp Grossmont Surgery
violated women's privacy, including women filmed during childbirth
as part of the hospital's effort to catch a doctor suspected of
stealing anesthesia drugs.

Melissa Escalera, the named plaintiff, alleges that Sharp violated
privacy of thousands of women in three operating rooms at the
hospital.  Ms. Escalera said she was filmed giving birth by
Caesarean section to her baby six weeks prematurely, after
arriving at the hospital by ambulance, Fox News reported.  "I
would have never agreed to be recorded in that vulnerable moment,"
she stated.

The suit claims that the videos showed patients unconscious and
undergoing medical procedures, "while they were emotionally and
physically exposed, often naked" with genital areas exposed.

According to the complaint, the hospital allowed a male security
guard to review the videos.  The hospital has admitted to also
turning over 14 videos showing patients to Duane Admire, an
attorney representing the doctor accused of stealing drugs.

Sharp has apologized for its error in turning over those videos to
the attorney and indicated it was reaching out to those patients
whose privacy was admittedly breached, as ECM previously reported.

But Sharp has maintained that it had a right to make the videos
and have hospital staff review them, citing language in medical
consent forms that allowed for videotaping for purposes including
safety.  Some medical ethics experts have disputed that, claiming
a separate waiver would be required for videotaping, according to
an inewssource investigation that broke the story of the
videotaping.

Sharp has not commented on the lawsuit, per its policy of not
commenting on any pending litigation.

Attorney Allison Goddard with Patterson Law Group is representing
Ms. Escalera.  In an interview with Courthouse News he stated," If
they had invited a security guard in his uniform and an attorney
in a suit to stand in the room when she was undergoing surgery she
obviously wouldn't consent to that."

The hospital has turned over some videos to the State Medical
Board after reportedly finding evidence on videos that showed
Dr. Adam Dorin, an anesthesiologist, taking the drug propofol off
an anesthesia cart and putting it into his pocket.  According to
Sharp, videos provided to the state did not show patients.
Dr. Dorin has insisted he was not stealing drugs -- and now other
anesthesiologists have come to his defense, inewssource reports.
Dr. Dorin was suspended but the very next day the suspension was
lifted after evidence from other anesthesiologists emerged.

Dr. Patrick G. Sullivan, former chief of Grossmont's anesthesia
department, wrote an open letter to the public blasting the
hospital for severely violating the public trust with the
videotaping.  He defends Dr. Dorin's actions, stating that the
hospital had a year-long shortage of propofol and that at times
patients were on the operating table and "there was not enough
propofol to put them to sleep."  He said as a result, many
anesthesiologists routinely took propofol from one part of the
hospital to another to save for use during emergencies.  He
further accused Sharp of singling out Dr. Dorin for retribution
because Dorin had been a whistleblower who spoke out publicly on
safety issues.

Dr. Sullivan's letter also said that when he and several
obstetricians/gynecologists discovered the hidden video camera in
March 2013, "we passionately complained to the Women's Center
Director and implored her to remove the cameras, but she refused."
Doctors then began putting tape over the camera lens to protect
their patients' privacy, after which the camera eventually was
taken down.

Dr. Dorin's attorney has asked to review all of the videos to
prove his client's innocence, but a court has denied that request.

Dr. Sullivan is calling for the resignation of the Women's Center
Director and wants all 6,966 videos reviewed by Dorin's attorney
or a female third party agreed to by both sides to see if there is
evidence to clear Dr. Dorin as well as to determine the extent of
privacy violations.  He also calls for state and federal
investigations.

The California Department of Public Health is now investigating
whether the hospital violated the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act known as HIPAA.   If so, Sharp could pay hefty
penalties up to a max of a quarter of a million dollars.

The costs to Sharp could be far higher, however, if the class
action privacy lawsuit on behalf of female patients prevails in
court.


SMYTHE CRAMER: Obtains Reversal of Class Certification Order
------------------------------------------------------------
President Judge Eileen T. Gallagher of the Court of Appeals of
Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County reversed a trial court
judgment granting class certification and remanded the case of
PATRICK W. CANTLIN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SMYTHE CRAMER
CO., Defendant-Appellant, No. 103339 (Ohio Ct. App.)

Smythe Cramer Co., doing business as Howard Hanna Smythe Cramer
(HHSC), provides real estate brokerage services to buyers and
sellers of real estate.

Patrick Cantlin and Elizabeth Hong are buyers who purchased a home
jointly in 2009. Cantlin and Hong signed a purchase agreement for
a purchase price of $196,000. The purchase agreement provided that
the seller would pay a brokerage commission of 7% of the sales
price and $225 to Smythe Cramer.

Plaintiff Rita Noall was also a buyer who purchased a home in
2009. She too signed a purchase agreement obligating her to pay
Smythe Cramer a $225 administrative fee.

Plaintiff Cindy Miller was a seller. She signed an exclusive right
to sell agreement with Smythe Cramer. Under the agreement, Miller
agreed to pay Smythe Cramer a commission of 7% of the 1st $100k
and 5% on balance of the sales price. She also agreed to pay an
administrative fee of $225. The obligation to pay the
administrative fee is also included in the purchase agreement to
sell Miller's house.

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Smythe Cramer,
alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent inducement. In
their complaint, plaintiffs allege that a class action is
appropriate and necessary because Smythe Cramer has engaged in
widespread fraud by an identical practice uniformly against its
customers by charging them a sham fee for which no services are
provided, titled administrative fee, regulatory compliance fee, or
broker service fee.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification to which Smythe
Cramer opposed, arguing that plaintiffs failed to meet their
burden of proof on the rigorous requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.
The trial court issued a decision, granting plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Smythe Cramer challenges the trial court's order certifying a
class in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, arguing that the trial
court plainly abused its discretion in ruling that plaintiffs-
appellees' claims of fraud, fraud in the inducement, and unjust
enrichment may be maintained as a class action under Civ.R.
23(B)(3).

President Judge Gallagher reversed the trial court's judgment
granting plaintiffs' motion, and remanded the case to the trial
court.

A copy of President Judge Gallagher's journal entry and opinion
dated May 26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/PlTeh9from
Leagle.com.

Anthony J. Coyne -- acoyne@mggmlpa.com -- Tracey S. McGurk --
tmcgurk@mggmlpa.com -- at Mansour, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos Co.,
L.P.A.; Jennifer M. Keas -- jkeas@foley.com -- Jay N. Varon --
jvaron@foley.com -- at Foley & Lardner, L.L.P., Attorneys for
Appellant

Attorneys for Appellees:

     James A. DeRoche, Esq.
     1600 Midland Building
     101 West Prospect Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Telephone: 216-696-9330
     Facsimile: 216-696-8558

          - and -

     Glenn D. Feagan, Esq.
     Law Offices of Glenn D. Feagan
     614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1410
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Telephone: 216-937-2222

          - and -

     James S. Timmerberg, Esq.
     Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
     Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
     Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A.
     60 South Park Place
     Painesville, OH 44077
     Telephone: 216-861-4211
     Email: jtimmerberg@dworkenlaw.com
            pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
            nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
panel consists of President Judge Eileen T. Gallagher and Judges
Anita Laster Mays and Frank D. Celebrezze.


SN SERVICING: Faces "Russell" Suit in N.D. W. Virg.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against SN Servicing Corporation. The
case is captioned Patrick Russell, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SN Servicing
Corporation and NPML Mortgage Acquisitions, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00088-IMK (N.D. W. Virg., May 16, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Irene M. Keeley.

SN Servicing engages in the management and sale of real estate
owned properties in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira A. Richardson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IRA RICHARDSON, PLLC
          921 Eagle Run Road
          Morgantown, WV 26508
          Telephone: (304) 581 8579
          E-mail: ira.richardson@whoseminerals.com


SOHO SUSHI: Faces "Dong" Suit Pursuant to FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
XU BI DONG, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs, v. SOHO SUSHI, INC. d/b/a SOHO SUSHI and YUFITA TJHIN,
Case 1:16-cv-03840 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2016), allege, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, that they and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime, (2) unpaid minimum wages, including those resulting from
an improperly claimed tip credit, (3) unreimbursed expenses of
"tools of the trade" and maintenance/repair costs, (4) liquidated
damages and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.

Soho Sushi offers a large menu of sushi & other fare, plus select
lunch specials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Provides Update on Ontario Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
SouthGobi Resources Ltd. (the "Company" or "SouthGobi") on May 31
disclosed that the May 24, 2016 decision of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice ("the Court").  The Court granted SouthGobi leave
to appeal the decision made on November 5, 2015, which granted the
plaintiff permission to commence an action claiming damages under
the Ontario Securities Act with respect to the Company's
restatement of financial statements as previously disclosed in the
Company's public filings.  The Company will therefore proceed to
appeal the original decision which will likely be heard by the
appellate court in the Fall of 2016.

                          About SouthGobi

SouthGobi -- http://www.southgobi.com-- listed on the Toronto and
Hong Kong stock exchanges, owns and operates its flagship Ovoot
Tolgoi coal mine in Mongolia.  It also holds the mining and
exploration licences of its other metallurgical and thermal coal
deposits in South Gobi Region of Mongolia.  SouthGobi produces and
sells coal to customers in China.


STONERIDGE INC: District Court Has Yet to Adopt Ruling in "Verde"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the District Court has
not yet ruled on whether to adopt the Magistrate Judge's ruling in
Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. case.

The Company has a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et
al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM. The
plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and
others on March 26, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that the Company
was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution,
and sale of a control device ("CD") that was incorporated into a
Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006.  Plaintiff alleges
that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification
provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of
performing its intended function. The putative class consists of
all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles
model years 1994-2007 equipped with the subject CD. Plaintiff
seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the
putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing
the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification seeking to
certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain
automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1998-2007. Plaintiff alleges
this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people.
In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that
damages are no more than $1,000 per person.

A hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification was
held on November 16, 2015, and the United States District Court
has not yet ruled on class certification. On April 8, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge granted the Company's motion for partial summary
judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's indemnification claim; the
United States District Court has not yet ruled on whether to adopt
the Magistrate Judge's ruling.


STONERIDGE INC: "Royal" Class Suit Pending in W.D. Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Royal v. Stoneridge,
Inc. et al. is a legal proceeding currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Cause
No. 5:14-cv-01410-F.  Plaintiffs filed this putative class action
against the Company, Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others
on December 19, 2014.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company was
involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and
sale of a CD that was incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased
by Plaintiffs between 1999 and 2006.  Plaintiffs allege that the
Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. breached various
express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty of
merchantability.  Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company
and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.  The putative class consists
of all owners of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which
includes various Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission
vehicles manufactured from 1997-2007, which Plaintiffs allege is
more than one million vehicles. Plaintiffs seek recovery of
economic loss damages associated with inspecting and replacing the
allegedly defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and
the trucks in which they were installed, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The amount of compensatory or other damages sought by
Plaintiffs and the putative class members is unknown.

On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court granted in
part the Company's and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.'s motions
for summary judgment, and dismissed four of the Plaintiffs' five
claims against the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the United
States District Court's ruling, which remains pending. The Company
is vigorously defending itself against the Plaintiffs'
allegations, and has and will continue to challenge the claims as
well as class action certification. The Company believes the
likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and
therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at March
31, 2016.


SUNEDISON INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 3
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Vivint Solar, Inc. securities (NYSE:VSLR) from July
20, 2015 through March 7, 2016, both dates inclusive (the Class
Period). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Vivint Solar
investors under the federal securities laws against SunEdison.
Vivint Solar and its officers and directors are not defendants in
this case.

To join the Vivint Solar class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-875.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Jonathan Horne, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, SunEdison and certain of its officers
and directors made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) SunEdison would be unable to obtain
financing for the acquisition of Vivint Solar; (2) SunEdison's
liquidity was less than defendants were stating; (3) SunEdison
would not be able to complete the acquisition of Vivint Solar; and
(4) as a result, defendants' statements about the merger between
SunEdison and Vivint Solar were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, damaging
Vivint Solar shareholders. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 5, 2016. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-875.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
jhorne@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Jonathan Horne, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com


TALENTBIN INC: ICRAA Claims Dismissed
-------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the ICRAA claims
against TalentBin, Inc.,

On or about October 12, 2015, TalentBin, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Company, was served with notice of a purported consumer class
action for allegedly assembling, scoring and sharing candidate
profiles in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act
("ICRAA"). The lawsuit, entitled Eric Halvorson, et. al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
TalentBin, Inc. (Case No. CGC 15 548270), was brought in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco. On or about November 2015, the action was removed to
the United States District Court, Northern District of California
(Case No. 3:15-cv-05166). The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, statutory
penalties of between $100 and $1,000 per violation, punitive
damages and other costs and attorney's fees. On February 23, 2016,
the ICRAA claims were dismissed voluntarily. The Company intends
to vigorously defend this matter and is currently unable to
estimate any potential losses.


TEXAS: Takes Steps to Revamp Sex Offender Treatment Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Blaney, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
outside of a struggling West Texas town, about a mile from the
high school, sits a one-story brick building, its perimeter
fencing topped with razor wire.  Since last fall, it's been home
to some of Texas' most violent sex offenders.

The former prison re-opened after the state overhauled its civil
commitment program for convicted sex offenders following a state
investigation that found the previous operation was poorly managed
and ineffective for 16 years.  The men had been scattered in
halfway houses across Texas, and no one in the program had
successfully completed it and re-entered the broader community.

It's at this facility, about 40 miles from Lubbock, where
officials believe the in-patient treatment protocol will yield
better results for those confined here by court order due to its
more intensive and therapeutic nature, according to Marsha McLane,
the top official with the Texas Civil Commitment Office.

"We expect people to graduate . . . and get out on their own and
do what they need to do to be safe and law-abiding citizens,"
Ms. McLane said.  "This is not a warehouse for sex offenders."

Critics, however, contend the new facility is just that.  They
also say the private operator is interested in only profit, not
rehabilitation.  Plus, the program's overhaul will be compared
against those in 19 other states and the District of Columbia, all
of which permit civil commitment of convicted sex offenders who
are considered likely to commit new sex crimes after finishing
prison sentences.

Minnesota's civil commitment program was ruled unconstitutional a
year ago, and a class-action lawsuit called it tantamount to a
life sentence.  Seeing some similarities, Texas lawmakers closely
watched that case and worked to correct problems in its own
program.

About 210 men ages 27 to 78 are in the Texas Civil Commitment
Center, which, though no longer a prison, looks like one with its
heavy metal doors and drably painted cinderblock walls.

"It feels like a prison, but I don't view it as prison," said 52-
year-old Alex Barrera, twice convicted for indecency with a child
but is in the program's final treatment tier.  "This is the next
step to get back into the community."

The residents attend group treatment sessions six hours a week,
double what they did in halfway houses, and receive individual
therapy at least once a month, officials say.  The program has
four levels of treatment inside the facility, and the higher you
go, the more privilege you get; tier three residents can have a
calls-only cellphone and work paid jobs within the facility.

After a resident completes the fourth tier, Ms. McLane determines
whether they're ready for the fifth -- going back to the county
where they were convicted to live and work under supervision by a
case manager. She's approved two moves, one for a man in Fort
Worth and another in Houston.

Before lawmakers overhauled the program, about half of those
civilly committed were sent back to prison for violating one or
more of about 200 treatment or supervision rules.  Now,
Ms. McLane said, there are only such four rules, including
contacting their victim and tampering with the GPS monitors they
wear.

The facility is run by Nashville, Tennessee-based Correct Care
Solutions, a for-profit prison company that signed a two-year, $24
million contract last year after most of the state's halfway
houses refused to renew their contracts because they had run out
of room for more offenders.

The deal with the state has been a mixed blessing for Littlefield,
a town of nearly 6,300 where cotton production drives the economy.
Though people like 80-year-old Don Martinez are concerned about
having sex offenders in the same town where his granddaughter
lives -- "I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do about it,"
he said -- the facility has brought in about 100 jobs and will
save the city about $750,000 in annual debt payments, which
Littlefield covered since the prison closed in 2009.

Critics say Correct Care, which provides medical and behavioral
health services to about 250,000 people nationwide and also runs a
civil commitment operation in Florida, is only interested in
profit.

"We feel that as a treatment provider they're totally unqualified
because they are a private prison company at heart and the profit
motives only incentivize cutting corners and compromising the
quality of care," said Cate Graziana of the Austin-based nonprofit
Grassroots Leadership, which works nationally to end for-profit
prison operations.

Correct Care spokesman Jim Cheney responded to that accusation in
an email, saying its patient care is "unparalleled in this
industry."

Rehabilitation is possible if treatment is done appropriately, but
doing so in institutional settings tends to not be as successful
as community halfway houses, said Maia Christopher of the Oregon-
based Association of Treatment of Sex Offenders. However, she
said, in-patient institutional programs followed by supervised
community placement, like Texas' new setup, does increase
effectiveness.

"It is helpful to have people sort of being in the environment
that they're going to be in so that they can practice skills and
you can sort of monitor what's going on with real-time kind of
feedback," Ms. Christopher said.


TRANSLINK: Set to Compensate Canada Line Class Action Members
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Lazatin, writing for iNews, reports that TransLink will be
coughing up some money in response to a class action lawsuit.

Last year, a BC supreme court sided with owners and tenants whose
businesses were affected by the Canada Line construction in the
years before the 2010 winter Olympics.

Lawyer Paul Bennett, who represents the class-action members says
those affected had until May 31 to file their claims.

"I'd say about 90 clients.  It is a reasonably good participation
by the class.  Now, the next step will be to set the procedure for
determining the amounts of compensation."

Claimants say they lost out as soon as construction of the Canada
Line began.

"The class members were all the owners of business properties
along Cambie Street between King Edward and 2nd, or business
tenants."

Mr. Bennett says last minute applications are still rolling in,
and that the next step will be to set up a meeting with TransLink
and to set procedure for determining the amounts of compensation.

Pay out

When asked how much he thinks clients will be compensated, he says
he doesn't have a ball-park figure yet.

Leonard Schein, who used to own the Park Theatre, says he lost
about $200,000.

Because the province gave TransLink permission to disrupt
businesses, Schein says those negatively affected can only claim
for lease compensation and not loss in revenue.

So is it a fair deal?

"Not really, because your losses are much greater. But it's
certainly better than getting nothing.  So, 20% of your losses is
better than zero percent of your losses."

Mr. Schein says about 75% of people who qualify as part of the
class action lawsuit have applied.

He adds 39 businesses had shut down during construction, and less
than 10 reopened.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Reseals Documents
-----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that, in the class action lawsuit
against Trump University, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel on
June 1 ordered some released documents to be resealed and
resubmitted with sections blacked-out.   He said some records had
"mistakenly" been released May 27, when he ordered some documents
made public.

Trump University is the target of two lawsuits in San Diego and
one in New York that accuse the business of fleecing students with
unfulfilled promises to teach secrets of success in real estate.

                           *     *     *

Elliot Spagat, writing for The Associated Press, earlier reported
that nearly 400 pages of documents that detail sales strategies
for the now-defunct Trump University have been unsealed in a
class-action lawsuit, showing how employees were instructed to
play on peoples' emotions to get them to buy more expensive
seminars on how to succeed in real estate.

The documents were unsealed on May 31 in San Diego in the lawsuit
by customers who say they were defrauded.  On May 27, a judge who
has earned Mr. Trump's scorn sided with attorneys for The
Washington Post that the public has a right to know what was
previously confidential.

The documents tell employees how to manage the "roller coaster of
emotions," with detailed scripts on what to say if a potential
customer balks.

Mr. Trump has maintained that customers were generally satisfied
with the offerings.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Nov. 28 Trial Set in Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Asinyabi, writing for Inquisitr, reports that a class-
action lawsuit was filed in 2013 by the state of New York against
the now defunct Trump University.  Another suit has been filed in
San Diego, California, under U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel's
jurisdiction.  Donald Trump's response is that Judge Curiel is a
hostile judge who is angry because of the presumptive GOP
nominee's stance on undocumented Mexicans.

Mr. Trump questioned whether Judge Curiel is biased and later
referenced the judge's perceived nationality, per CNN.

Donald Trump defended Trump University as recently as May 27 at a
campaign rally in San Diego.  He argued that Judge Curiel is not
only an Obama appointee, but is also "a hater," according to
Fox 13.

Trump University LLC was founded in 2004 by Donald Trump and two
of his business partners, Michael Sexton and John Spitainy.  A
year later, the New York Department of Education informed Trump
and his associates that they could not use the word "university"
in the name of the school, as legally, they had not obtained a
charter or accreditation.

NYSDE also informed Trump and associates that they couldn't offer
live training to students in New York State due to lack of a
license, which is required, per education policies in the state.
In June 2010, the name was changed to the "Trump Entrepreneur
Initiative."

Courses at Trump University ranged in price from approximately
$1,500 to $35,000.  The less expensive courses were 3-day
seminars, while the most expensive "gold-level" program included
personal mentoring and on-site real estate tours.  Students were
looking for access to information that would help them become
prosperous like the school's namesake.

Many were disappointed and said the classes were worthless and
dispersed knowledge that was readily available elsewhere.  The
lawsuit states the classes were like "infomercials," encouraging
students to buy more but not delivering on promises.

Alan Garten, a Trump attorney, said the former university should
not be blamed because students had difficulty selling real estate
during the 2008 recession.

Attorneys who are fighting on behalf of Trump University said the
playbooks contain trade secrets and the information inside them
shouldn't be disclosed.  Judge Curiel said it is unlikely that the
school will reopen, and the information has no commercial value.

Democrat-Gazette reports that Judge Curiel in San Diego was
ordering the release of Trump University internal documents in a
class-action lawsuit against Mr. Trump's now-defunct real estate
school.  Judge Curiel has set a Nov. 28 trial date.

Mr. Trump's lawyers deny any wrongdoing in the case before Curiel
as well as in another class-action suit in San Diego and a $40
million lawsuit filed in 2013 by the state of New York alleging
that more than 5,000 people had been defrauded.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Smythe" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc. The case
is captioned Ryan Smythe, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and
Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CGC 16 552035 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 16, 2016).

Uber Technologies provides a smartphone application that connects
drivers with people who need a ride.


UNILIFE CORP: Faces Class Action, July 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on May 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Unilife
Corporation (UNIS) ("Unilife" or the "Company") securities during
the period between February 3, 2014 and May 23, 2016, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Investors with losses in excess of $100,000
who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have
until July 25, 2016 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Unilife securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company's
former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and former Chairman of the
Board of Directors ("Board") had violated the Company's policies
and procedures and had engaged in violations of law and
regulation, the Company lacked adequate internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting, and the Company would be
unable to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2016 by the prescribed filing deadline.

According to the complaint, following a May 8, 2016 announcement
that the Company was postponing its earnings conference call due
to the discovery of violations of Company policies and procedures
and possible violations of law and regulation by the Company's
former CEO and former Chairman of the Board, that the Company was
investigating the issues' potential impact on financial reporting
and internal controls, and that the Company expected to delay
filing its quarterly Form 10-Q, a May 11, 2016 filing of a
Notification of Late Filing, and a May 23, 2016 announcement that
the Company was not in compliance with a NASDAQ listing rule, the
value of Unilife shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in Unilife securities
purchased on or after February 3, 2014 and held through the
revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the
Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and
your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or
obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html

You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with
information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in
question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


UPC AUSTRIA: Austrian Consumer Association Wins Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Telecompaper reports that the Commercial Court in Vienna ruled
that a clause in UPC Telekabel Wien's terms and conditions to
charge a processing fee for a payment order is inadmissible. The
Austrian Consumer Association (VKI) had launched a class action
suit on behalf of the Ministry for Social Affairs.


VASCO DATA: Still Defends "Rossbach" Suit in N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------
VASCO Data Security International, Inc. continues to defend
against the lawsuit by Linda J. Rossbach, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security
International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming
VASCO and certain of its current executive officers as defendants
and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased VASCO securities between February
18, 2014 and July 21, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly
caused by the defendants' alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a
class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees.

Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the
court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to
file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead
plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. The defendants
will then have sixty days to answer or otherwise respond to the
operative complaint. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation
cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action
vigorously.


VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Faces "Landau" Suit in E.D. Penn.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Viridian Energy PA, LLC. the case
is captioned Steven Landau, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Viridian Energy PA, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02383-GAM (E.D. Penn., May 16, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. Gerald A. Mchugh.

Viridian Energy provides utility services. The Company offers
generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy M. Frederick, Esq.
          MARCUS & MACK PC
          57 South Sixth St
          Indiana, PA 15701
          Telephone: (724) 349 5602
          E-mail: TFrederick@marcusandmack.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Farnbauch" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
-----------------------------------------------------------
David L. Farnbauch, individually and representative of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group
of America Inc., doing business as: Volkswagen of America Inc., a
Corporation, the Defendant, Case no. 1:16-cv-00973, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02621-CRB to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Farnbauch case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold by Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Crystal D. Pulley, Esq.
          MCCLURE MCCLURE & DAVIS
          235 N. Delaware Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 221 0800
          Facsimile: (317) 221 0900
          E-mail: crystal@pulleylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward W. Hearn, Esq.
          JOHNSON & BELL, PC (CROWN POINT)
          11051 Broadway, Ste B
          Crown Point, IN 46307
          Telephone: (219) 791 1900
          Facsimile: (219) 791 1901
          E-mail: hearne@jbltd.com

               - and -

          Patrick Demetrios Grindlay, Esq.
          1005 Burlington Beach Road
          Valparaiso, IN 46383
          Telephone: (219) 263 9058
          E-mail: patrick.grindlay@gmail.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Judge Narrows Claims in "Bumgarner" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the Northern District
of Oklahoma granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions
to dismiss in the case JOHN BUMGARNER, Plaintiff, v. THE WILLIAMS
COMPANIES, INC., and ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P., Defendants,
Case No. 16-CV-26-GKF-FHM (N.D. Okla.)

Plaintiff John Bumgarner brought an action to enjoin the
defendants from further proceeding with a proposed merger. In his
second amended complaint, brought for himself and for members of a
proposed class of Williams shareholders, Bumgarner alleges
defendants and their representatives made false or misleading
representations or omissions when soliciting proxies for the
shareholder vote on the proposed merger, in violation of Section
14 of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n.

Defendants The Williams Companies, Inc. and Energy Transfer
Equity, L.P., moved to dismiss the second amended class action
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants argue
that the statements fall under a safe harbor for forward-looking
statements in 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-5(c) and that Bumgarner has
not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that the alleged
omissions amount to a securities violation.

Chief District Judge Frizzell granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants' motions are denied as
to Bumgarner's claim based on an alleged negligent
misrepresentation or omissions in defendants' explanation for the
reductions in the synergies estimate. Defendants' motions are
granted as to Bumgarner's claim based on an alleged failure to
disclose a conflict of interest by a Williams board member holding
an interest in Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. However, Bumgarner's
request for leave to amend that claim is granted. Bumgarner was
given until May 27, 2016, to file his amendment to that claim.
Defendants' motions are granted as to Bumgarner's claim based on
an alleged failure to disclose how it was ascertained that the
Williams directors who voted against the transaction fully support
the board's commitment to consummate the transaction as required
by the terms of the merger agreement.

A copy of Chief District Judge Frizzell's opinion and order dated
May 26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/3JNBNzfrom
Leagle.com.

John Bumgarner, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Laurence Lindsay Pinkerton, Esq.
     Pinkerton Law, P.C.
     15 East Fifth Street Penthouse Suite
     Tulsa, OK 74103
     Telephone: 918-587-1800
     Facsimile: 918-582-2900

Williams Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Antony L Ryan
-- aryan@cravath.com -- Sandra C Goldstein --
sgoldstein@cravath.com -- Stefan Howard Atkinson --
satkinson@cravath.com -- at Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP; Elliot
Paul Anderson -- elliot.anderson@crowedunlevy.com -- Mary H
(Molly) Tolbert -- molly.tolbert@crowedunlevy.com -- Michael James
Gibbens -- michael.gibbens@crowedunlevy.com -- at Crowe & Dunlevy

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., Defendant, represented by Clifford
Louis Thau -- cthau@velaw.com -- John C Wander --
jwander@velaw.com -- Marisa Antos-Fallon -- mantos-
fallon@velaw.com -- at Vinson & Elkins; Jessica Lynn Dickerson --
jessica.dickerson@mcafeetaft.com -- William Suttle Leach --
bill.leach@mcafeetaft.com -- at McAfee & Taft


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Merger Class Suit in Oklahoma Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma, filed January
14, 2016, that claimed that disclosures about the proposed merger
with Energy Transfer violate certain federal securities laws and
that the defendants are liable for such violations, was dismissed
for failure to state a claim by April 28, 2016, although the
plaintiff has the permission of the court to amend his claims.

Williams Companies is an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Class Suit by WPZ Unitholder Filed
------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported
unitholder of Williams Partners L.P. (WPZ) filed on March 7, 2016,
a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of WPZ
units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma.

The Company said, "The action names as defendants us, WPZ,
Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and Donald R. Chappel
and alleges violations of certain federal securities laws for
failure to disclose Energy Transfer's intention to pursue a
purchase of us conditioned on us not closing the WPZ Merger
Agreement when announcing the WPZ Merger Agreement. The complaint
seeks, among other things, damages and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss at this time."

Williams Companies is an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Geismar Cases Begins September
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that trial for lawsuits
related to the Geismar incident have been set to begin September
6, 2016, in November 2016 and January and April 2017.

The Company said, "On June 13, 2013, an explosion and fire
occurred at our Geismar olefins plant and rendered the facility
temporarily inoperable (Geismar Incident). We are addressing the
following matters in connection with the Geismar Incident."

"On October 21, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued an Inspection Report pursuant to the Clean Air Act's
Risk Management Program following its inspection of the facility
on June 24 through June 28, 2013. The report notes the EPA's
preliminary determinations about the facility's documentation
regarding process safety, process hazard analysis, as well as
operating procedures, employee training, and other matters. On
June 16, 2014, we received a request for information related to
the Geismar Incident from the EPA under Section 114 of the Clean
Air Act to which we responded on August 13, 2014. The EPA could
issue penalties pertaining to final determinations.

"Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite
impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury,
have been filed against us. To date, we have settled certain of
the personal injury claims for an aggregate immaterial amount that
we have recovered from our insurers. The trial for certain
plaintiffs claiming personal injury, that was set to begin on June
15, 2015, in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, has been postponed to
September 6, 2016. The court also set trial dates for additional
plaintiffs in November 2016 and January and April 2017.

"We believe it is probable that additional losses will be incurred
on some lawsuits, while for others we believe it is only
reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to
ongoing litigation involving defenses to liability, the number of
individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and
extent of all plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all
appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate any such losses at
this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses
incurred will be covered by our general liability insurance
policy, which has an aggregate limit of $610 million applicable to
this event and retention (deductible) of $2 million per
occurrence."

Williams Companies is an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Court Dismissed Class and Derivative Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has
dismissed the class and derivative action filed in Delaware.

The Company said, "In July 2015, a purported shareholder of us
filed a putative class and derivative action on behalf of us in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action named
as defendants certain members of our Board of Directors as well as
WPZ, and named us as a nominal defendant. On December 4, 2015, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint for such action, alleging
that the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with our
proposed merger with Energy Transfer is false and misleading. As
relief, the complaint requested, among other things, an injunction
requiring us to make supplemental disclosures and an award of
costs and attorneys' fees. On December 9, 2015, we moved to
dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 7,
2016, the Court granted our motion."

Williams Companies is an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Class Actions Filed in Delaware Chancery
------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that between October
2015 and December 2015, purported shareholders of the Company
filed six putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of
Chancery that were consolidated into a single suit on January 13,
2016. Purported shareholders also filed a separate class action
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2016.
These two pending putative class action lawsuits relate to our
proposed merger with Energy Transfer.

The Company said, "The complaints assert various claims against
the individual members of our Board of Directors, that they
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell us through an
allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price and by
allegedly failing to disclose material information about the
merger. The complaints seek some combination of, among other
things, damages, an injunction against the merger, and an award of
costs and attorneys' fees. We cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss at this time."

Williams Companies is an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plaintiff Dismissed Suit in Del. Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware on
January 19, 2016, related to the proposed merger with Energy
Transfer but the plaintiff of that lawsuit filed a notice for
voluntary dismissal on March 7, 2016, which the Court accepted.

Williams Companies is an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Court Trims Claims in Stockholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Holdings, Inc. and Windstream Services, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016, that the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint.

On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a Shareholder
Class Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its Board of
Directors.  This complaint was accompanied by a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off. The Court,
ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015 -- the day before a
special meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a reverse
stock split and amended governing documents (the "Proposals") --
denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning
that much of the information sought by plaintiff had been
disclosed in public filings available on the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission's website, the Windstream
Holdings' board of directors was in no way conflicted, and while
approval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off, approval
was not necessary to effect the spin-off.

On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putative
Windstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action
Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and
its Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking to
rescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages.

On February 5, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court
dismissed Windstream, and plaintiffs' demand to rescind the spin-
off, but otherwise denied the motion.

Winstream offers bundled services, including broadband, security
solutions, voice and digital television to consumers.  It also
provides data, cloud solutions, unified communications and managed
services to business and enterprise clients.


WPX ENERGY: Royalty Suit in Colorado Stayed
-------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a
royalty litigation have agreed to stay plaintiffs' second lawsuit
pending resolution of the first lawsuit.

In September 2006, royalty-interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County, Colorado, alleging we improperly calculated oil and gas
royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received from the
sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly charged
certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess
of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs sought to certify a
class of royalty-interest owners, recover underpayment of
royalties and obtain corrected payments related to calculation
errors.

The Company said,"We entered into a final partial settlement
agreement. The partial settlement agreement defined the class for
certification, resolved claims relating to past calculation of
royalty and overriding royalty payments, established certain rules
to govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved
claims related to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments,
established a procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding
in the future, and reserved two claims for court resolution."

"We have prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on
the first reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to
deduct mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain
lease agreements. The remaining claim is regarding whether we are
required to have proportionately increased the value of natural
gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and,
if required, whether we did so and are entitled to deduct a
proportionate share of transportation costs in calculating royalty
payments.

"Plaintiffs have claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus
interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court
issued pretrial orders finding that we bear the burden of
demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct
transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied
on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of
post-production transportation costs.

"Trial occurred in December 2013 on the issue of whether we have
met that burden. Following that trial, the court issued its order
rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting our position
as to the methodology to use in determining the standard by which
our activity should be judged. We completed the accounting process
under that standard and have obtained the court's approval.

"However, as we continue to believe our royalty calculations have
been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate
contractual arrangements and Colorado law, we appealed this matter
to the Colorado Court of Appeals. In March, 2016, the Colorado
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment against us
and adopted our position that transportation costs incurred after
gas is made marketable are not subject to an enhancement test.

"Plaintiffs have now appealed that ruling to the Colorado Supreme
Court.

"Plaintiffs have also filed a second class action lawsuit in the
District Court, Garfield County containing similar allegations but
related to subsequent time periods. The parties have agreed to
stay the second lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit."


WPX ENERGY: 2 Royalty Suits Pending in New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that two royalty class
action lawsuits are pending in New Mexico.

In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against us in the County
of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently alleges failure
to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate, breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent
concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of gas and
affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons in
Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment
Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs sought monetary
damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating
to production, payments and future reporting.

This matter was removed to the United States District Court for
New Mexico where the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
us in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory judgment,
accounting and injunctive relief.

"At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient
information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to
these claims," the Company said.


XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Units Defending Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that certain of the
Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several
putative class action litigations brought by independent contract
carriers contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract
carriers assert that they should be classified as employees,
rather than independent contractors. The particular claims
asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers' business
expenses.

Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are
pending in California (Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.,
filed in May 2005, currently in the Federal District Court,
Southern District of California; and Ron Carter, Juan Estrada,
Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO
Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016 in the Federal District
Court, Northern District of California), New Jersey (Leonardo
Alegre v. Atlantic Central Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc.,
filed in March 2015 in the Federal District Court, New Jersey),
Pennsylvania (Victor Reyes v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May
2015 in the U.S. District Court, Pennsylvania) and Connecticut
(Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in November 2015 in
the Federal District Court, Connecticut).

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing
claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of these claims.


XPO LOGISTICS: Completed Settlements of Multi-Plaintiff Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that during the first
quarter of 2016, the Company completed the settlement of multi-
plaintiff actions in Massachusetts (Celso Martins, Alexandre
Rocha, and Calvin Anderson v. 3PD, Inc. filed in July 2011 in
Massachusetts State Court) and Illinois (Marvin Brandon, Rafael
Aguilera, and Aldo Mendez-Etzig v. 3PD, Inc. filed in May 2013 in
the Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois).


XPO LOGISTICS: "Leung" Last Mile TCPA Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is a party
to a putative class action litigation (Leung v. XPO Logistics,
Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court, Illinois)
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") related to an automated customer call system used by a
last mile logistics business that the Company acquired. The
Company has asserted indemnity rights pursuant to the agreement by
which it acquired this business, subject to certain limits. This
matter is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not yet
determined whether to certify the matter as a class action. The
Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential
impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably
estimable relating to this matter. The Company is unable at this
time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss,
if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a
result of this matter.


XPO LOGISTICS: Still Faces Less-Than-Truckload Meal Break Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's LTL
subsidiary is a party to several class action litigations alleging
violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws.
Plaintiffs allege failure to provide drivers with required meal
breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified
monetary damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.

The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way
Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina case"). The Pina case was
initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court
and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern
District.

The Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle the Pina
case, subject to execution of a settlement agreement, court
approval and acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the
purported class.

There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will be
finalized and executed, that the court will approve any such
settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the requisite
percentage of members of the purported class. The Company believes
that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss
contingencies relating to the Pina case. The Company is unable at
this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur
as a result of these claims.


XPO LOGISTICS: To Pay Fees of Plaintiff's Counsel in Con-way Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the litigation
related to the Con-way acquisition, the Company has agreed to pay
fees and expenses of plaintiff's counsel.

On October 7, 2015, a purported stockholder of Con-way filed a
putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
captioned Abrams v. Espe, et al., C.A. No. 11585-VCN. The
complaint named the members of the board of directors of Con-way,
XPO and an affiliate, and Citigroup Inc., financial advisor to
Con-way in connection with the proposed acquisition, as
defendants. The complaint alleged that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize
shareholder value in connection with the proposed transaction and
failing to disclose certain information in the Schedule 14D-9 of
Con-way relating to the proposed acquisition. The complaint also
alleged that the other defendants aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit sought, among other
relief, a preliminary injunction, rescissory damages and recovery
of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees.

On February 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Stipulation and
Proposed Order requesting dismissal of the action, and further
noting their intent to submit an application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On February 24,
2016, the Delaware court granted the Order, retaining jurisdiction
solely for the purpose of determining plaintiff's counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

The Company has agreed to pay fees and expenses of plaintiff's
counsel, and plaintiff's counsel has agreed not to make any
application to the Court for additional attorneys' fees and
expenses. This fee has not been in any way approved or ruled upon
by the Court of Chancery.


ZONI LANGUAGE: Appeal Filed in "Fernandez" FLSA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
purported class action lawsuit titled Fernandez, et al. v. Zoni
Language Centers, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-6066, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 13,
2015, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, seek to recover unpaid minimum wages and
liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Fernandez, et al. v. Zoni
Language Centers, Inc., Case No. 16-1689, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          E-mail: JAndrophy@Faillacelaw.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Stephen I. Latzman, Esq.
          276 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 532-3368


* Canada Court Fails to Address Waiver of Tort Cert. Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Mohrbutter, Esq. of MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reports that waiver of tort continues to
surface in a variety of class actions cases across Canada.  A few
themes from the last few years:

   -- Waiver of tort analysis at the cause of action stage of
certification motions largely continues to be deferred;

   -- There are several decisions that find breaches of statute
alone cannot serve as the basis for the needed "wrongdoing" to
ground a waiver of tort claim;

   -- Waiver of tort common issues may be framed in a bifurcated
manner; and

   -- Waiver of tort issues have been dismissed by some courts in
a fashion that suggests the doctrine can only be parasitic.

Deferral

There are several recent examples of the Court's continuing
failure to address the nature and scope of waiver of tort at
certification by clinging to the assertion that a trial is needed
for this purpose.  In Sweetland v GlaxoSmithkline 2016 NSSC 18
["Sweetland"] Wood J. concluded "I am not prepared to dismiss the
possibility of compensation based upon waiver of tort at this
stage.  Nor am I foreclosing the defendants from arguing that it
is not a stand-alone cause of action and is only remedial in
nature."

Also see Lee v Transamerica Life Insurance Canada 2016 BCSC 191 at
para 128, "It remains unclear whether waiver of tort is an
independent cause of action or an alternate remedy only.  As the
name suggests, however, there must be an actionable underlying
tort before the doctrine can be invoked."  Whether alleged
participation in a fraudulent scheme could ground a restitutionary
claim in waiver or tort "is an issue to be decided at a later
date."

The B.C. Court of Appeal took the same approach in Authentic
T-Shirt Company 2016 BCCA 59, an individual action against a
former employee and her new employer for misuse of confidential
information.  The plaintiff expressly waived damages and pursued
the gain said to have been made as a result of the confidential
information.  The Court upheld the chambers judge's decision to
refuse to strike the waiver of tort claim on the basis that the
law remains unsettled on this point, relying in part on the
Supreme Court Pro-Sys decision which found that it was
inappropriate to work out the details of waiver of tort in the
circumstances of that appeal.

However, note another B.C. decision, Vaugeois v Budget Rent-A-Car
2015 BCSC 802 where the Court succinctly noted:

[15] To the extent the plaintiffs' cause is waiver of tort as an
independent cause of action, such an independent cause of action
has not yet been recognized at law.  Moreover, the plaintiffs in
the relief sought in paragraph 18(j) of their Amended Notice of
Civil Claim refer only to restitution to the plaintiff(s) and
other class members "in an amount equal to the monies received on
account of the Scheme".  The plaintiffs' pleadings do not set
forth their view of the elements of the action.  Under Part 3:
Legal Basis, it is stated in general terms:

In the alternative, the Plaintiff waives the tort and pleads that
he and other Class members are entitled to recover under
restitutionary principles.

[16] In sum, the plaintiffs have not satisfied the rule in Hunt
with respect to a cause of action based on waiver of tort.

Last, Perell J. has strongly questioned any implication that Pro-
Sys precludes a cause of action analysis of waiver of tort at
certification.  In O'Brien v Bard 2015 ONSC 2470 (a defective
pelvic mesh product liability case) he held:

[157] In Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, supra
at para. 97, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the questions
about the consequences of identifying waiver of tort as an
independent cause of action involve matters of policy that should
not be determined at the pleadings stage . . .

[158] Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. was a competition law action.  The
case at bar is a products liability tort case.  For decades, going
at least as far back as Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562
(H.L.), and continuing to this day, courts have determined matters
of policy in tort claims at the pleadings stage and if it were
necessary to do so I would decide whether waiver of tort is a
cause of action and, if it is a cause of action I would decide
whether it is a viable cause of action for a products liability
proposed class action so as to satisfy the cause of action
criterion of certification.

He went on to conclude it would be "inconceivable" why class
members would ever waive tortious personal injury damages in favor
of disgorgement.  Therefore, it was not "reasonable" to pursue
waiver of tort in the circumstances of that class action.

Breach of Statute

Most Courts have said very little about the parameters of waiver
of tort other than the Plaintiff must at least prove the Defendant
did something "wrong" before a disgorgement remedy is possible.
Some Courts have concluded that if no other accepted causes of
action in tort are available then waiver of tort cannot stand on
its own.[1] As noted earlier, Lee v Transamerica holds that "there
must be an actionable underlying tort before the doctrine can be
invoked."  This, of course, begs the question (which apparently
cannot be answered until trial according to most Courts) how
waiver of tort can possibly be an independent cause of action if
its substantive underpinning depends entirely on a separate tort.

There is also a growing body of law from British Columbia which
stands for the proposition that a breach of statute alone cannot
serve as the wrongdoing to underlie a waiver of tort claim.

Wakelam v Wyeth Healthcare 2014 BCCA 36 is a case involving the
sale of children's cough medicine.  It was alleged that the
defendant made false and misleading misrepresentations in breach
of the Competition Act and B.C.'s consumer protection legislation.
No cause of action of action in tort was pleaded. On the basis
that the aforementioned statutes were breached, the plaintiffs
pleaded waiver of tort and claimed restitutionary disgorgement
remedies even though the statutes did not provide for such
remedies.  Drawing on the Court's previous reasoning in Koubi v
Mazda, the Court held that restitutionary claims based solely on
breach of statute in this instance were not permissible.  In other
words breach of statute alone could not constitute the predicate
wrongdoing to proceed under waiver of tort.  The Court noted that
there was nothing to suggest the legislature intended that the
causes of action created by these statutes could be expanded or
augmented by grafting restitutionary claims onto them.

The Court continued with this line of reasoning in Charlton v
Abbot Laboratories 2015 BCCA 26, "In light of the decisions in
Koubi and Wakelam, the class proceeding cannot have been certified
to permit the plaintiffs to advance a claim for recovery from the
defendants of enrichment accruing to them as a result of the
marketing of sibutramine in breach of a statutory duty.  The
action must be for damages, or, in waiver of tort, for breach of
what are referred to in Koubi as "anti-harm" torts."

Watson v Bank of America Corp. 2015 BCCA 362 involved a claim
whether standard terms imposed by credit card companies on
merchants concerning fees infringed the Competition Act or
constituted a conspiracy under that Act and at common law.  Waiver
of tort was pleaded in the alternative seeking recovery under
restitutionary principles.  The Court discussed Wakelam and noted
it barred "claims in restitution for simple breach of the
Competition Act."  Where a claim is based on "non-observance of
the Act and nothing else . . . the remedy provided by the Act in
s. 36 is the sole route to recovery."  However, the Court
clarified that breaches of statute can potentially be relied on as
the components of certain torts, such as the unlawfulness criteria
in conspiracy claims.  In this scenario, waiver of tort, could be
pursued but only to the extent it is grounded in the tort.

Madam Justice Brown had earlier come to the same conclusion in
Fairhurst v. Anglo American PLC, 2014 BCSC 2270 at para 16, "that
the plaintiff s claims for restitution, to the extent that they
are based on breaches of the Competition Act are not viable.
However, I cannot be satisfied that the tort claims based on these
breaches are bound to fail.  Moreover, in this case, the breaches
of the Competition Act are not the only wrongs alleged in the tort
and restitutionary claims, and so those claims would be viable in
any event."

Justice Perell disagreed with Watson and Fairhurst in Shah v LG
Chem Ltd. 2015 ONSC 6148 on the point whether any breach of the
Competition Act could serve as the unlawful component in a
conspiracy claim.  Instead he preferred a broader reading from
Wakelam that "Parliament did not intend the statutory right of
action should be augmented by a general right in consumers to sue
in tort or to seek restitutionary remedies on the basis of
breaches . . . of the Competition Act."  Waiver of tort was not
pleaded in Shah but the unjust enrichment pleading was found not
to disclose a cause of action based on this reasoning.[2]

Also note Harrison v Afexa Life Sciences 2016 BCCA 83 where the
Plaintiff sought damages under deceit, fraudulent
misrepresentation and s. 36 of the Competition Act in relation to
misrepresentations involving Cold-FX.  Waiver of tort was relied
on to seek reimbursement of all funds spent on Cold-FX. In
allowing the waiver of tort claim to proceed, the Court appears to
suggest that a cause of action based solely on the Competition Act
could support a claim in waiver of tort:

[61] The plaintiff pleads waiver of tort on the basis of causes of
action for deceit, fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, as well
as breach of the Competition Act.

[63] In my previous reasons, I allowed the claim for unjust
enrichment and waiver of tort to proceed based on s. 36 of the
Competition Act, following Pro-Sys Consultants in the Supreme
Court of Canada.  This claim must be allowed to proceed on the
basis of s. 36 of the Competition Act.

However, it's not clear from Pro-sys whether the waiver of tort
claim in that case was connected only to the Competition Act
rather than the other various torts pleaded.

Other jurisdictions have made general comments that suggest
breaches of statute could ground a waiver of tort action. In
Babstock v Atlantic Lottery Corp. 2014 NLTD 114 the Court noted at
para 203:

If the doctrine is an independent cause of action, then proving
wrongful conduct, either by breach of a statute, breach of
contract, or failure to act in accordance with a duty of care, is
sufficient to give rise to a restitutionary remedy, in the absence
of proof of individual damages.

Bifurcation

In Sweetland Justice Wood followed Ontario authorities that have
bifurcated questions of a potential entitlement to elect a
disgorgement remedy from the quantification of such a remedy.[3]
The reasoning in the Ontario cases is, in part, that class member
are unable to make an informed decision whether to elect a
disgorgement remedy without the ability to compare the value of
compensatory damages.  Such damages can only be determined after
individual trials on causation and liability.

Justice Wood also described the process that would follow the
common determination of entitlement as an individualistic process:

85 . . . If the common issues trial decides that a restitutionary
remedy is available to the plaintiffs the quantification may raise
a number of questions requiring individual consideration. These
include whether there must be an election to take restitution in
lieu of compensatory damages.  Depending on their different
circumstances some plaintiffs may be entitled to restitution and
others not.  These issues may lend themselves to determination in
individual assessments or as further common issues across the main
class or new subclasses.  The resolution of all of these matters
can be addressed within the broad authority of the trial judge
following the initial decision on this common issue.

Parasitic View/Underlying Loss

Other courts have simply refused to certify waiver of tort issues
for reasons apparently based on a view that waiver of tort has no
ability to exist without the existence of other causes of action
and/or where loss has not been suffered.

While certifying other issues, Justice Gabrielson rejected a
waiver of tort issue in Dembrowski v Bayer 2015 SKQB (an action
involving birth control pills alleged to carry higher risks of
various conditions than other pills). Gabrielson J. treated the
waiver of tort issue, which asked whether the defendant should
disgorge all or some of its revenue, as a claim for aggregate
damages.  He noted, "in order to have a viable cause of action,
the individual plaintiffs must prove that they suffered loss or
injury as a result of the defendants' breach of duty."  The
determination of the waiver of tort issue could not then be
determined, "until such time as liability has been established
based upon individual member's personal circumstances."  The Court
further noted why a common issue based on waiver of tort was not
appropriate, "this is not a case where damage to each member of a
class is a given.  Here, some users of Yasmin and Yaz, may have
had a benefit and no adverse reaction.  There remains a factual
issue to be determined before liability is established."

Last, in Sandhoff v Loblaw 2015 SKQB 345 Keene J. summarily
dismissed a proposed class action wherein the Plaintiffs alleged
that it was wrongful for the Defendants to market some of their
soda products as being low in sodium.  There was no dispute the
soda in question was actually low in sodium since all soda is low
in sodium.  However, the plaintiff filed expert evidence
attempting to raise a genuine issue concerning the misleading
nature of the defendant's labelling.

The claim was summarily dismissed since there was no evidence the
plaintiff relied upon the low sodium representation or that the
plaintiff suffered any losses.  The claim was based on waiver of
tort along with negligence, breach of consumer protection
legislation and the Competition Act.  After dispensing with the
other causes of action the Court said in relation to waiver of
tort, unjust enrichment and punitive damages, "I have grouped
these claims here and find that none would apply or be sustained
in this claim."  As with other cases, the concept of whether any
wrong had occurred appears to have been assessed through the lens
of other known causes of action rather than anything that could be
said to be inherent within the concept of waiver of tort.


* CFPB Proposal to Open Class Action Floodgate, Attorney Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Petro, writing for Buffalo Law Journal, reports that
federal courts report seeing more class-action lawsuits in recent
years, and more could be on the way under a recent proposal by the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The agency is looking to pass a rule that would remove from
financial arrangements an arbitration provision that bans class
action.  It would affect, most notably, financial products such as
credit cards and bank accounts.

Brendan Little -- blittle@lippes.com -- a partner at Lippes
Mathias Wexler Friedman, said many clients strongly oppose
government control of agreements between them and their customers.
They say allowing class action to proceed against creditors will
lead to an influx of lawsuits.

"If these restrictions come into place, the floodgates could open
up for further class action," he said.  "Already we had been
seeing a spike in class-action litigation."

Mr. Little, who focuses his practice on commercial and business
litigation matters, said many companies in the financial industry
have put language into consumer agreements that says if a dispute
or claim arises, one must go to mandatory arbitration on an
individual basis to settle it.

This was done because of all the class-action lawsuits, he said,
and in recent years it's helped many of them to be quickly
resolved.  Arbitration can be an expensive process and many times
the plaintiff's bar doesn't want to take these cases because of
cost, he said.

"It was a way by the creditors and the banks to say, 'Hey, this is
a way we can cut these claims off,' " Mr. Little said.

The new regulations came about after the CFPB conducted a 2015
study that showed most consumers did not realize they were subject
to these limitations concerning the right to go to court, said
Sharon Porcellio, a litigator at Bond Shoeneck & King who handles
arbitration and mediation, as well.

She said it can be expensive when an individual goes to court with
a small financial claim, just as companies would say it's an
unwelcome expense for them to defend a class action.


* Chicago City Treasurer Calls for Class Actions v. Big Banks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Washington, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that
Chicago City Treasurer Kurt Summers wrote to three employee
pension funds representing city workers, laborers and
firefighters, urging them to consider class-action suits against
big banks to restore money lost to so-called "toxic swap"
investments.  Chicago's teachers and police pension funds already
have gone to court.  The suits generally allege that certain
financial institutions, in Mr. Summers words, "engaged in
collusive, anti-competitive behavior that enabled them to maintain
control of the interest rate swap market resulting in billions of
dollars of unjust enrichment."

Mr. Summers, in a phone interview on May 27, called on Mayor Rahm
Emanuel and other officials to join legal actions that could reap
"north of tens of millions of dollars" for city-related pensions
alone. "Given the fiscal situation we are in, at the city, county
and state levels," he said, "we have no choice but to pursue this
aggressively."

Mr. Summers is adamant that his move is not about politics, but
about fulfilling his "fiduciary obligation" to recoup funds for
the taxpayers.


* Fitness Trackers Wildly Inaccurate, New Research Shows
--------------------------------------------------------
Mirror.co.uk reports that fitness trackers are wildly inaccurate
when it comes to counting calories burnt off during exercise,
according to new research.

A study found brands such as Fitbit and Jawbone were up to 40 per
cent wrong during strenuous work-outs.

Three fitness trackers significantly underestimated the calorie
burn for household tasks and all four overestimated calorie burn
during energetic exercise.

Some 115 million wearable trackers and smart watches were sold
worldwide last year, according to research firm Gartner.

Fitbit, the most popular brand sold 21.4 million devices and Apple
about 12 million of its watches which count calories burnt off
during exercise.

Fitbit is currently fighting a class action in the US over claims
that two of its trackers misreported heart rates, potentially
putting people's lives at risk.

US researchers from Ball State University in Indiana tested two
wrist-worn trackers, the Fitbit Flex and the Jawbone UP24 and two
hip-worn trackers, the Fitbit Zip and Fitbit One, on 30 adults
taking part in a variety of fitness classes.

Volunteers were hooked up to a metabolic analyser to measure their
calorific outputs.

All the trackers were accurate to within eight per cent of the
calorie count while doing light exercises.

For exercise designed to mimic household activity, all the
trackers except the Fitbit Flex significantly underestimated
energy expenditure by between 27 per cent and 34 per cent.

None of the trackers accurately measured calories burn off during
energetic exercise, with some out by up to 40 per cent.

Researcher Alexander Montoye said: "Fitness trackers began to take
off in popularity in 2013, but we didn't really know how well they
worked.

"We found irregularities in several areas, but still for a lot of
people they can be a good motivational tool.

"There are benefits to constantly tracking what you do."

A spokesman for Fitbit said: "Fitbit trackers are designed to
provide meaningful data to users to help them reach their health
and fitness goals and are not designed to be scientific or medical
devices."

A spokesman for Jawbone said the UP24 was a "relatively old
product" which used older technology.

It said the UP platform was designed to "engage, motivate and
change people's behavior to improve well being."


* Meritless RICO Suits v. Pharma Cos. to Drive Up Drug Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tiger Joyce, writing for Washington Times, reports that many
political candidates this campaign season have criticized what
they imply are conspiratorially high drug prices, and some
irresponsibly prescribe policies that could limit incentives to
develop life-improving and life-saving medications in the future.


Curiously, none of the candidates prescribe reasonable limits on
civil liability, even though America's lawsuit industry routinely
targets innovative pharmaceutical companies with often meritless
litigation.  Drugmakers currently face thousands of pending
lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country and spend
billions of dollars annually to defend against them.  And those
costs are passed on to consumers.

Troublingly, a relatively new line of meritless litigation against
pharmaceutical defendants seeks to exploit state consumer
protection laws and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), originally signed into law in 1970 as a
powerful prosecutorial weapon in the fight against organized
crime.

Decades later, a growing group of profit-seeking personal injury
law firms has been teaming up with political allies, including
some health insurance providers run by organized labor, to pervert
and wield the RICO law -- specifically its provision for tripling
civil damages awards -- against drugmakers in what one defense
attorney calls "a shameless pursuit of free money."

With questionable logic, this new strain of RICO lawsuits accuses
pharmaceutical companies of fraudulent marketing when they update
their drugs' safety labeling to include new risk information that
sound science had not previously established.  Once a label is
updated, the lawsuits claim, all previous marketing of the drug
was ipso facto fraudulent.

Such "fraud on the market," plaintiffs claim, tricked them into
paying more for the drug than they otherwise would have, so they
are entitled to compensation -- times three.  And because the RICO
statute also allows plaintiffs to sidestep a typical class
action's certification process, during which a degree of
"commonality" among class members' injuries and circumstances must
be established before the case can proceed, plaintiffs and their
lawyers don't even claim that anyone was ever harmed by or
received substandard care as a result of using the drug in
question.


* States See Uptick in Hail Damage Claims v. Insurance Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Johnson, writing for Claims Journal, reports that in the
last few years, hail damage lawsuits have crowded Texas courts.
Using the same model employed in the Lone Star state, hail damage
litigation is beginning to impact other states where large hail
events have occurred, including Colorado, Oklahoma and Minnesota.

Colorado, in particular, has seen a significant uptick in
insurance claims and suits relating to hail damage.  One reason is
that Colorado, like Texas, has favorable consumer protection laws.
In fact, Colorado allows contractors to file bad faith lawsuits
against insurance companies resulting from disputes on a claim,
according to Steven Badger, a Dallas-based partner with Zelle LLP.

That's similar to the situation giving rise to all the lawsuits in
Florida, he explained.

"Florida recognizes a formal assignment of benefits that allows
insureds to assign claim benefits to the contractor.  In Colorado,
the contractor is considered a party with an actual remedy under
the bad faith statute when the carrier doesn't fully pay for the
alleged roof repairs," Mr. Badger said.

In addition, Colorado is seeing increasing use of the appraisal
process, with increasing abuses during the process by certain
public adjusters, professional appraisers and attorneys, Badger
said.

"Interestingly, we are seeing a significant influx of individuals
from Florida getting involved in Colorado claims and appraisals,"
Mr. Badger said.  "For whatever reason, most of the disputed
claims and appraisals that we are working on for our clients in
Colorado involve individuals from Florida."

This may be due to minimal hurricane activity in Florida in recent
years, as well as the fact that Texas already has a ripe market of
appraisers, public adjusters and policyholder attorneys, he said;
whereas Colorado does not.

"It's a market where they can come in from Florida and set up
shop," he said.

'Badger's firm has taken an aggressive and vocal stance on behalf
of the insurance industry in not only defending hail litigation,
but also in responding to improper conduct by those involved in
the claims and litigation process.  Recently, Badger filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of a group of homeowners against a North
Texas roofing contractor alleged to be involved in improper claims
handling conduct.

Several of Mr. Badger's articles on the subject have been
published by Claims Journal.

In one article, he offered several possible solutions to the
problem in Texas.  He said these same solutions can be applied in
other states as well.

"One idea that would be applicable anywhere is to mandate the use
of Class 4 hail rated roofing products in areas of severe hail
exposure.  There are products out there that are more hail
resistant and would not fail in small hail events," Mr. Badger
said.

In fact, Underwriters Laboratories recently submitted a proposal
to the International Building Code drafters, proposing a revision
to the codes that would require hail rated products in areas of
severe hail exposure, he explained.  That proposal was voted down
as a result of overwhelming opposition from roofing contractor and
roofing manufacturer trade groups.

"Another solution is stronger enforcement in the various states of
what I call the "no negotiate" statutes that prohibit contractors
from involving themselves in the insurance claims process," Mr.
Badger said.  "Most states already have statutes or insurance
regulations in place that prohibit such conduct, but unfortunately
the conduct remains rampant.

Contractors routinely act on behalf of building owners in
negotiating insurance claims.  Laws in place prohibiting such
conduct should be enforced."

If the barrage of hail damage lawsuits continues, there is the
possibility that insurers will exclude these type of claims,
Badger said.

"It's something that's already happening," he said.  "In Hidalgo
County, where there were over 10,000 lawsuits filed after the 2012
hailstorms, at least two major insurers have completely pulled out
of the market.  We will continue to see this market response
wherever hail lawsuits are proliferating."

Mr. Badger said he wouldn't be surprised to see a Texas Hailstorm
Insurance Association created, much like the windstorm insurance
association.

"Will it happen? It could.  But I'd sure like to see another
solution to this crisis, and that can be achieved by restoring
some balance and fairness to claims and litigation process," he
said.

"If we could address the problems without changing any laws or
having to restrict coverage, that would be ideal," Mr. Badger
stated.

Mr. Badger said that he doesn't see that happening in this current
climate.

One positive trend in the right direction is that courts are
beginning to take notice, he said.

"There are federal judges writing opinions clearly indicating that
they understand what's happening in these lawsuits and they don't
like it," he explained.  "To bring an end to this problem without
legislative action or policy form changes will require assistance
from the courts, from the Texas Department of Insurance, from the
State Bar of Texas and from local criminal authorities."

As a result of the articles Badger has written on the subject and
his recent class action lawsuit filing, he has had numerous
communications with investigators from the Texas Department of
Insurance, the State Bar of Texas and a couple of local district
attorneys.

"They are paying attention to the complaints being filed and are
beginning to take action against illegal conduct," said
Mr. Badger.

Mr. Badger recommended that insurers facing an onslaught of hail
damage lawsuits seeking damages that are clearly not covered
should stand by their policy forms and applicable law.

"They need to break the model where a public adjuster or lawyer
knows that if they can get someone to sign a contract allowing
them to file a lawsuit, all they have to do is file the suit and
the insurance carrier will pay something regardless of merit. That
model has to come to an end," explained Mr. Badger.  "Also, the
carriers need to spend the time to root out the illegal conduct
going on in some of these claims and report that bad conduct to
the authorities."

These days, Mr. Badger has a team of coverage attorneys spending
their days defending hail damage lawsuits.

"That's allowing me to spend all of my time in focusing on
addressing the fraudulent and illegal conduct we are seeing," he
said.  "This includes the class action we just filed against a
roofing contractor for the unauthorized practice of public
adjusting, reporting building owners to the authorities for
fabricating replacement cost invoices and working with reputable
lawyers who are bringing lawsuits against other lawyers for
illegal case running."

While it may all seem negative, Mr. Badger said he is encouraged
by the calls of support he has received from reputable contractors
who are tired of dealing with fellow contractors that illegally
waive deductibles; from experienced public adjusters tired of new
entrants into their industry who have no desire to actually adjust
and settle a claim, but just want to get their matters into the
hands of a lawyer; and from real policyholder attorneys who are
ashamed to see what is happening within their ranks.

"Everyone knows there is a problem in Texas and that the problem
is spreading to other states," Mr. Badger said.  "We just haven't
agreed yet on the solution to the problem."

failure to address the nature and scope of waiver of tort at
certification by clinging to the assertion that a trial is needed.


* Third-Party Litigation Funding Needs Regulation
-------------------------------------------------
Martha White, writing for NBC News, reports that trade groups for
business and legal interests have different views about the
ramifications of outside money in the justice system.

"Third-party funding poses a major threat to the integrity of the
legal system by shifting the focus from justice for the litigants
to profits for the investor," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which
opposes the practice entirely, said in a 2013 article.

A spokesman for the American Bar Association declined to comment
about the practice, but the group's Commission on Ethics 20/20
addressed the practice in a 2012 report.

Lawyers must approach transactions involving alternative
litigation finance with care," it said, noting the risks and
professional obligations, but without issuing a policy declaration
either for or against the practice.

Although law firms aren't allowed to bring on outside investors,
the rules don't say anything about investing in individual cases
or even portfolios of bundled cases.  And of course, lawyers have
long offered services based on contingency that give them a cut of
any money they win for their clients.

Contingency financing differs from outside funding in two
significant ways, experts say: While lawyers are required to do
what's in their clients' best interests, critics say outside
financiers could push plaintiffs to turn down reasonable
settlements, hoping to drag out litigation in pursuit of a bigger
jackpot.  They also worry that funders more interested in money
than the outcome of the case could interfere with the selection of
counsel and unduly influence the plaintiff's legal strategy.

Contingency arrangements also are fundamentally limited by the law
firm's willingness and ability to float the expense of a suit on
their own balance sheet.

Some cases "require a substantial devotion of financial resources
and time to recover . . . and that may take several years," said
Charles Delbaum, a senior staff attorney at the National Consumer
Law Center.  "To devote tens of thousands of dollars to a case
could be crippling and might be impossible," he said, especially
for small law firms.

There's very little that is black and white about the practice,
said University of Iowa College of Law professor Maya Steinitz,
who supports regulating but not banning outside financing.

"Overall, litigation funding is a positive thing because it can
provide access to justice.  But like every form of finance, it can
be used or it can be abused," she said, suggesting that one of the
federal financial regulators could step in and provide guidelines
and parameters to protect plaintiffs as well as investors.

"It's interesting that litigation funding is becoming more and
more complex . . . at the same time as the 'slicing and dicing' of
financial instruments has gotten a bad reputation in the world of
finance, where such complex instruments are seems as contributors
to the financial crisis," Geoffrey Miller, co-director of the
Center for Civil Justice at the New York University School of Law,
said via email.  "I predict it may be subjected to greater
regulation, but won't disappear."

Beyond legal skirmishes among between businesses, the prospect of
being able to leverage venture capital to pursue class-action
cases against companies encourages consumer advocates.

"For class-actions, in particular, it can take a tremendous amount
of money to litigate a case to conclusion," said
Allison Zieve, director of the litigation group at watchdog Public
Citizen.  Lawsuits over data breaches, for instance, would require
hiring computer experts at considerable expense to spend time
analyzing both hardware and software for bugs or security flaws.
Research and bringing discovery for product liability cases can
also be a time-consuming and expensive endeavor.

In cases like this, consumer advocates say, even if a third party
has their own financial interests in mind, an investment in a case
could benefit class plaintiffs as well.

The University of Iowa's Steinitz said greater judicial scrutiny
applied in class-action settlements seemed to be keeping would-be
investors on the sidelines.  "We don't have data because this is a
private market.  My understanding is there's very little of it
happening," she said, but predicted that it was only a matter of
time before that changes.

Most of the speculative money pouring into litigation today is
going into corporate law.

"A lot of this funding is going to corporations, businesses that
are suing other businesses," Ms. Steinitz said.  Small businesses
might not have the financial firepower to take on a larger company
that steals trade secrets, violates a patent or breaches a
contract.

Having access to funds that would allow them to mount a sustained
legal defense could make them whole, or could help them avoid
getting tangled in litigation in the first place if executives at
the larger corporation know they won't be able simply to wield
their larger checkbook to avoid consequences.

"The big pro of allowing litigation funding is it allows access to
justice," Ms. Steinitz said.  "Litigation is just too expensive."




                            *********

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  * * *