CAR_Public/160609.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 115




                            Headlines


39 DEGREES INC: Faces "Yang" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
A10 NETWORKS: Settles Class Action for $800,000
ACCEL MOTORS: "Moslem" Asserts Sole Ownership of Firm
ACT FAST: "Young" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT and Wages Under FLSA
ALERE INC: "Andren" Sues Over Faulty Monitoring Equipment

AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Iida" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Simmons" Suit in W.D. Wash.
AT&T CORPORATION: Faces "Meron" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BLUE SHIELD: "Des Roches" Sues Over Denied Claims
BONA 1900: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Banegas" Suit

CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Suit Extended
CALIFORNIA: Schwarz Seeks Certification of Prisoner Classes
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces Class Action by Beneficial Owners
CAMEL CARPENTRY: "Contreras" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay
CAMPBELL SOUP CO: "Ferguson" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Class Certification Sought in "Hepfner" Suit
CELAPURE LLC: Faces "Arkin" Suit in M.D. Fla.
CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: Amended Complaint Filed in "Meier"
CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: MOU Reached in Merger Lawsuit
CHEN SUSHI KING: "Spallone" Files Suit Under FLSA

COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Dismissed Claims
CREDIT BUREAU: "Hamlet" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. W. Virg.
CVS PHARMACY: "Ramos" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
DAVIE BLVD: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
DIANA'S COMMISSARY: "Garcia" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

DILIGENT HEALTH: "Meza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Bid to Appeal
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Friedman" Sues Over Share Price Drop
EURAMEX MANAGEMENT: "Jackson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Rauch" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

FUTURE PAYMENT: Faces "Russell M. Holstein" Suit in D.N.J.
GERDAU SA: "Boland" Sues Over Depository Receipt Price Drop
GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to July 1
HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against St. Paul Teachers' Case
HIALEAH PARK: "Jordan" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay

HOUSTON BEER: "Reissig" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
IMS HEALTH: "ARCare" Sues Over TCPA Violation
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Donato" Securities Litigation
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $45MM Cash Payment Anticipated in Q2
KEMPER SPORTS: "Stapleton" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages

KLX ENERGY: "Reed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: "McKinnon" Suit to Recover Illegal Deductions
KNOWLES CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Held in Audience IPO Suit
KNOWLES CORPORATION: July 29 Hearing in Audience Acquisition Suit
LA PARIS CAFE: "Casanova" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Shabazz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
MAGNA CHEK: Intersol Seeks Certification of Class in Illinois
MALABAR INVESTMENTS: "Torres" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: "Bishop-Bristol" Suit Transferred to Mass.
MASTEC INC: Two-Week Trial Period Set in March 2017

MCSS REST: Faces "Mendez" Suit in E.D.N.Y
MDL 2724: Plaintiffs Seek Transfer of Actions to E.D. Pa.
MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: "Carter" Suit Moved to E.D. Ark.
MERITOR INC: Faces Antitrust Class Actions in Michigan
MITEL NETWORKS: Approval of Stockholder Actions Pending

MP 3 CONSTRUCTION: "Carruega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
NASDAQ INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Suit
NASDAQ INC: Appeal in City of Providence Suit Pending
NASDAQ INC: Oral Argument Heard in "Lanier" Case Appeal
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shareholder Litigation Pending

NIKIL INC: "Warciak" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
ON DECK CAPITAL: Court Approved Schedule for Motion to Dismiss
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Still Pending
OVASCIENCE INC: Two Class Actions in Massachusetts Consolidated
PACIFIC OCEAN TRANS: "Barnwell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Merger Class Action Dismissed
PERFUME CENTER: Faces "Ahmad" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PET CLUB: Faces "Thornsburry" Suit in D. Ariz.
PHARMAVITE LLC: Lost Bid to Decertify Classes in "Barrera" Suit
RAINBOW ENTERPRISES: "Pesenecker" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

REALOGY HOLDINGS: Strader Second Amended Complaint Filed
REED HEIN: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT, Wages, Benefits
RETROPHIN INC: June 10 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
RGS FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Zolandz" Suit
RICHARD SNYDER: "Nappier" Suit Moved to W.D. Mich.

ROSA MEXICANO: "Huerta" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
ROSKO HOLDINGS: "Sangworrakan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ROUSE PROPERTIES: Stockholders File Action Against Brookfield
S & A UNIFIED: "Shulyar" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
SAGE PAYMENT: Faces "ARcare" Suit in E.D. Ark.

SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS: "Beck" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Suit Pending
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Parmelee and Benson Lawsuits
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Romero" Suit in S.D. Cal.
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Rivera" Suit in D.N.J.

SENTRY SURVEILLANCE: "Chemaly" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SETERUS INC: Acquired Unlawful Profit, "Rozwadowska" Suit Claims
SHIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Orozi" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT
SINGLECARE SERVICES: Comprehensive Health Files Suit in S.D. Fla.

SODEXO INC: "Riestra" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SPARK ENERGY: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Melville Suit
SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in "Amaya" Case
SPRING MEADOWS: "Nwogwugwu" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
SPROUTS FARMERS: Shareholder Class Action Removed

STATE FARM: "Cranfield" Breach of Contract Suit moved to N.D. Ohio
SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT: "Pinzon" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Law
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Telexfree Case Pending
TACOS AL CARBON: Violated FLSA, "Vigil" Suit Claims
TANGOE INC: "Moleski" Files Securities Class Action

TARGET CORP: "Rizzo" Sues over Share Price Drop
TC PIPELINES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
TC PIPELINES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
TD AMERITRADE: Appeal Filed in "Verdieck" Action
TD AMERITRADE: Accord in Reserve Yield Litigation Has Final OK

TEMPUR SEALY: Still Defends "Todd" Class Action
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Entered Into Binding Term Sheet
THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Faces "Adams" Suit Over ADA Breach
TIME INC: Rose Coulter-Owens Filed Class Action Appeal
TIME INC: To Defend Against "Perlin" Case

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Claims
TRUE RELIGION: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
TRUEACCORD CORP: Certification of Class Sought in "Lisiecki" Suit
TUMI HOLDINGS: Class Action Filed Over Samsonite Merger
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Continues to Defend Wilder Litigation

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Singh" Suit Moved to D.N.J.
UNILIFE CORP: "Bulcock" Files Securities Class Action
VALSPAR CORP: Sued Over Merger Breaches with Sherwin-Williams
VEREIT INC: Oral Argument Held in May in Consolidated Suit
VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Esposito" Suit

VEREIT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Witchko" Suit Pending
VEREIT INC: Appeal in "Poling" Action Still Pending
VEREIT INC: Carter and Schindler Actions Dismissed
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Recovered $4MM of Settlement in Q1
WOODHULL TOWERS: "Polanco" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay

WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Embree" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
YSL CARE: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages


                            *********


39 DEGREES INC: Faces "Yang" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against 39 Degrees, Inc. The case is
captioned Cher Yang, an individual, Samantha Yang an individual,
and Ka Lilly Yang, an individual, individually and on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs., v. 39 Degrees, Inc., a California corporation, I Luv
Sushi, an unknown entity, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC621964 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 27, 2016).

39 Degrees is a creative production company that makes films,
takes pictures and tells stories, come rain or shine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq.
          KO LEGAL, INC
          100 Oceangate, 12th Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 628 5548
          Facsimile: (562) 242 1590
          E-mail: Kim@KO-Legal.com


A10 NETWORKS: Settles Class Action for $800,000
-----------------------------------------------
A10 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 the parties in a class
action lawsuit have entered into a memorandum of understanding
reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all claims against
all defendants asserted in the action and providing that the
Company will make a payment of $0.8 million, net of the expected
proceeds of insurance policies.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, the Company, the members
of our Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of our March 21, 2014 initial public offering ("IPO")
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal Securities Act of 1933 filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-276207.  Several
substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the
same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants,
captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10 Networks,
Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and Kaveny v.
A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-279006 (filed April 6, 2015).
On May 29, 2015, the aforementioned putative class actions were
consolidated under the caption In re A10 Networks, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, 1-15-CV-276207."

"On April 6, 2016, all parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all
claims against all defendants asserted in the action and providing
that we will make a payment of $0.8 million, net of the expected
proceeds of insurance policies. The settlement releases all claims
asserted against all defendants and includes the dismissal of all
claims against all defendants without any liability or wrongdoing
attributed to them. The settlement remains subject to stockholder
notice, court approval and other customary conditions. A case
management conference is currently scheduled for August 5, 2016."

A10 Networks, Inc. offers four software based advanced application
networking and network security solutions to address end-customer
needs, including Application Delivery Controllers ("ADC") to
optimize web and back-office application performance, Carrier
Grade Network Address Translation ("CGN") to provide network
address, protocol translation services for service provider
networks and Threat Protection System ("TPS") for network-wide
multi-vector DDoS security protection and Convergent Firewall
("CFW") for protecting data centers and mobile infrastructure,
improving web security, and encrypting site-to-site
communications.


ACCEL MOTORS: "Moslem" Asserts Sole Ownership of Firm
-----------------------------------------------------
Mehdi Moslem a/k/a Michael Moslem and Accel Motors, Inc.
Plaintiffs, v. Dante DeMartino, Drew Smith and John Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 705768/2016 (N.Y Sup., May 16, 2016), seeks a
declaratory judgment that (a) Plaintiff is the sole shareholder
and owner of Accel, due to Defendant DeMartino's breach of his
fiduciary duty, and (b) Defendants Smith, DeMartino and John Doe
cannot hold themselves out as shareholders or officers of Accel.

Moslem alleges that his shares in Accel were fraudulently
transferred in order to conceal debt from creditors. DeMartino
opened a line of credit against the assets of the corporation,
without the consent or knowledge of Plaintiff, forcing Plaintiff
to refinance the corporation. Drew Smith refused to tender any
consideration for the transfer of DeMartino's shares in Accel
Motors.

Mehdi Moslem owns Accel Motors, Inc., a car dealership located at
30-15 Thomson Ave., Long Island City, New York 11101. He issued 51
shares of Accel to DeMartino. DeMartino entered into a real estate
partnership with Drew Smith, allegedly using Accel assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elias C. Schwartz, Esq.
     THE LAW FIRM OF ELIAS C. SCHWARTZ, PLLC
     343 Great Neck Road
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: 516-487-0175


ACT FAST: "Young" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT and Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Act Fast Delivery of West Virginia,
Inc., Act Fast Delivery, Inc., Home Care Pharmacy, LLC d/b/a
variety of entities including but not limited to Omnicare of Nitro
and/or Omnicare of Nitro, West Virginia, Compass Health
Services, LLC d/b/a variety of entities including but not limited
to Omnicare of Morgantown and/or Omnicare of Morgantown, West
Virginia, Omnicare, Inc., and other John Doe, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-cv-04909 (S.D. W. Virg., May 31, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, unlawful
deduction, attorneys' fees and costs as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants required and/or
permitted Plaintiff and other Route Drivers to work in excess of
40 hours per week, but failed to compensate them at a rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay.

Defendants' business includes the delivery of pharmaceutical and
medical products to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq.
          Elise Q. McQuain, Esq.
          GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
          P. O. Box 2107
          Charleston, WV 25328-2107
          Telephone: 304-346 7000


ALERE INC: "Andren" Sues Over Faulty Monitoring Equipment
---------------------------------------------------------
Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Alere Inc., a Delaware corporation, Alere Home
Monitoring, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Alere San Diego, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01255-GPC-NLS
(S.D. Ga., May 26, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, declaratory
and injunctive relief, enjoinment, restitution and disgorgement of
all monies acquired by Defendants with interest, attorney fees,
expenses and recoverable costs and such other and further relief
resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment and violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law.

Alere, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in
the State of California and nationwide. Alere, Inc., independently
and through its subsidiaries Alere Home Monitoring, Inc. and
Defendant Alere San Diego, Inc. manufactures, markets and sells
medical diagnostic testing products including the International
Normalized Ratio monitoring product.

Andren suffers from a medical condition that requires her to
closely monitor the relative speed at which blood clots form in
her body using the equipment she bought from the Defendants. She
did not take her medication because of faulty readings from said
equipment and suffered a stroke as a result.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Pifko, Esq.
     Roland Tellis, Esq.
     Mark Pifko, Esq.
     Peter Klausner, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
     Encino, CA 91436
     Telephone: (818) 839-2333
     Facsimile: (818) 986-9698

          - and -

     Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
     Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
     BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
     701 B Street, Suite 1700
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 338-1100
     Facsimile: (619) 338-1101


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Iida" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
The case is captioned Justin Iida and Larry Iida, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a
California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. BC622189 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 31, 2016).

American Honda Motor manufactures and sells Honda automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Simmons" Suit in W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery Group, Inc. The
case is captioned Natalie F. Simmons and Stephen H. Simmons,
husband and wife, Katherine A. Rohr-Smith, and Zaldy Fernandez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Asset Recovery Group, Inc., doing business as:
Asset Recovery Group of Washington, an Oregon corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00794 (W.D. Wash., May 31, 2016).

Asset Recovery Group, Inc., is an accounts receivable management
firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antoinette Marie Davis, Esq.
          ANTOINETTE M. DAVIS
          528 Third Avenue West, Suite 102
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 486 1011
          Facsimile: (206) 905 5910
          E-mail: tonie@toniedavislaw.com

               - and -

          Guy William Beckett, Esq.
          BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP
          1708 Bellevue Ave
          Seattle, WA 98122-2017
          Telephone: (206) 441 5444
          Facsimile: (206) 838 6346
          E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com

               - and -

          Kim Williams, Esq.
          Roblin John Williamson, Esq.
          WILLIAMSON & WILLIAMS
          2239 W Viewmont Way W
          Seattle, WA 98199
          Telephone: (206) 294 3085
          Facsimile: (206) 535 7899
          E-mail: kim@williamslaw.com
                  roblin@williamslaw.com


AT&T CORPORATION: Faces "Meron" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Corporation. The case is
captioned Simon Meron, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100,
Inclusive, and AT&T Corporation, A New York Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 552308 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31,
2016).

AT&T, originally the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is
the subsidiary of AT&T that provides voice, video, data, and
Internet telecommunications and professional services to
businesses, consumers, and government agencies.


BLUE SHIELD: "Des Roches" Sues Over Denied Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Charles Des Roches, on his own behalf and on behalf of his
beneficiary son, R.D., and all others similarly situated and
Sylvia Meyer, on her own behalf and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. California Physicians Service D/B/A Blue Shield Of
California, Human Affairs International Of California and Magellan
Health Services of California, Inc. (Employer Services),
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-02848-HRL, (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2016),
seeks declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs are each insured by a health insurance plan that is
sponsored by their employer where Blue Shield is responsible both
for paying claims under the Plans and for administering the Plan.
Plaintiffs' plans cover in-and-out-of-network treatments for
illnesses and injuries as well as for mental illnesses and
substance use disorders.

Charles Des Roches, on behalf of himself, his minor son R.D., is
insured under a Blue Shield of California health plan through his
employer. Sylvia Meyer is insured under a Blue Shield of
California health plan through her employer. Both were denied
claims for rehabilitation treatment.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Meiram Bendat, Esq.
      PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
      8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Tel: (310) 598-3690 ext. 101
      Fax: (310) 564-0040
      Email: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

          - and -

      Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
      Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (646) 722-8500
      Fax: (646) 722-8501
      Email: dberger@gelaw.com
             kmcgee@gelaw.com
             rmusarra@gelaw.com

          - and -

     Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     1185 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 704-9600
     Fax: (212) 704-4256
     Email: jcowart@zuckerman.com


BONA 1900: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Banegas" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Scarlet Banegas and Odin
Campos, On Behalf of Themselves and Similarly Situated Employees
v. Bona 1900, Inc. and Hnreck Nazarian a/k/a Nazarian Enterprises
d/b/a IHOP ("International House of Pancakes"), Case No. 1:16-cv-
00086-MAC (E.D. Tex.), file their motion to conditionally certify
a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and send notice to
members of a class of all current and former hourly employees of
the Defendants, who work or worked at restaurants owned, operated,
supervised or managed by the Defendants during the three-year
period prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them and a
class of similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lE4bAlQy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          T. Lynn Walden, Esq.
          David D. Reynard, Jr.
          WALDENREYNARD, P.L.L.C.
          Post Office Box 7486
          Beaumont, TX 77726
          Telephone: (409) 833-0202
          Facsimile: (409) 832-3564
          E-mail: twalden@wrtexaslaw.com
                  dreynard@wrtexaslaw.com


CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Suit Extended
---------------------------------------------------------
Caesars Acquisition 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, that the deadline to
respond to the Nevada lawsuit related to the Company's merger with
Caesars Entertainment Corporation has been indefinitely extended
by agreement of the parties.

On December 21, 2014, the Company and CEC entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which, among other things, CAC will merge with and into CEC, with
CEC as the surviving company (the "Proposed Merger").

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,
he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the
"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State
of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of
directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don
Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the
individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). The
Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for
breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to
order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC
in connection with the Proposed Merger, specifically by announcing
their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties
proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts
exist between the CAC Directors' personal interests and their
fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed
Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and
(c) act independently to protect the interests of the
shareholders; (3) to order the CAC Directors to account for all
damages suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiff and the
putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (4) to
award the plaintiff for his costs and attorneys' fees. It is
unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the
Proposed Merger. CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is
without merit and will defend themselves vigorously. The deadline
to respond to the Nevada Lawsuit has been indefinitely extended by
agreement of the parties.


CALIFORNIA: Schwarz Seeks Certification of Prisoner Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify two of the three classes
of persons set forth in the operative complaint in the lawsuit
styled BENJAMIN R. SCHWARZ, in his individual and class
representative capacities v. ERWIN MEINBERG, et al., Case No. CV-
13-00356-BRO(PLAx) (C.D. Cal.).  The two classes are:

     Class 2: all BOP Los Angeles MDC prisoners who, because they
     were subjected to the wrongful conduct of BOP officials and
     employees who forced them to reside in a prison cell whose
     toilet violated their right to be free from cruel and
     unusual punishment because it was unsanitary, damages,
     declaratory, and injunctive relief; and

     Class 3, all BOP prisoners who were subjected to a denial of
     the opportunity to be placed in a BOP camp, based solely on
     the fact that they were foreigners.

A hearing will be held on June 27, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., to consider
the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IuDgwyS7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Reichmann, Esq.
          YAGMAN & REICHMANN
          475 Washington Boulevard
          Venice Beach, CA 90292-5287
          Telephone: (310) 452-3200


CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces Class Action by Beneficial Owners
-------------------------------------------------------------
California Resources Corporation 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
class action was filed on April 21, 2016, against the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all beneficial owners of the Company's unsecured
notes from November 12, 2015 to the present.

"The complaint alleges that our December 2015 debt exchange
excluded non-qualified institutional holders in violation of the
Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and related law and, thereby, impaired
their rights to receive principal and interest payments.  The
purported class action seeks declaratory relief that the debt
exchange and the liens securing the new notes are null and void
and that the debt exchange resulted in a default.  The plaintiff
also seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company
plans to vigorously defend against the claims made by the
plaintiff," the Company said.


CAMEL CARPENTRY: "Contreras" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Yhon Anderson Arias Contreras and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Camel Carpentry Inc,
Stefanie Suarez, Elizabeth I. Negrete, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-21915-RNS, (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2016), seeks double damages for
all overtime wages still owing and reasonable attorney fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff claims to be denied the half time overtime rate for each
hour worked above 40 in a week.

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


CAMPBELL SOUP CO: "Ferguson" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Ferguson, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v. Campbell Soup
Company, Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1606306, (Cal. Super. April 28,
2016), was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on May 24, 2016, Case No. 5:16-cv-
01077-BRO-SK.

Plaintiff brings causes of action under the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Business
and Profession Code for unlawful, fraudulent and unfair conduct,
California False Advertising Law for misleading, deceptive and
untrue advertising.

Defendant is represented by:

      Dale J. Giali, Esq.
      Andrea M. Weiss, Esq.
      Rebecca B. Johns, Esq.
      MAYER BROWN LLP
      350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
      Telephone: (213) 229-9500
      Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
      Email: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
             aweiss@mayerbrown.com
             rjohns@mayerbrown.com

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
      Melanie Persinger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
      San Diego, CA 92103

            - and -

      Paul K. Joseph
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
      4125 W. Point Loma Blvd. #206
      San Diego, CA 92110


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Class Certification Sought in "Hepfner" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MARY HEPFNER, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO
SERVICES, LLC, CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, and CAWLEY & BERGMANN, LLP,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00648-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to
certify the class described in the complaint.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to both stay the motion for
class certification and grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YS1Omc2J

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELAPURE LLC: Faces "Arkin" Suit in M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Celapure, LLC. The case is
captioned Dr. Steven Arkin, a Florida resident, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
the Plaintiff, v. Celapure, LLC, a Texas limited liability
company, AQ Skin Solutions, Inc., a California corporation, and
John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01352-JDW-JSS
(M.D. Fla., May 31, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. James D.
Whittemore.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: Amended Complaint Filed in "Meier"
------------------------------------------------------
Checkpoint Systems, 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 27, 2016, that the plaintiff in the
Meier Class Action Lawsuit has filed an amended complaint.

The Company said, "On November 11, 2015, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our
current and former officers captioned, Meier v. Checkpoint
Systems, Inc., et al., No. 1:15-cv-08007 (RBK)(KMW) (D.N.J.).  The
complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
related to the restatement of the Company's previously-issued
financial statements announced on November 3, 2015.  The complaint
names as defendants our Chief Executive Officer and President
George Babich, Jr., our Chief Financial Officer James M. Lucania,
our former Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey O. Richard, and the
Company.  The complaint alleges that we had filed false and
misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission
beginning on March 5, 2015 through November 3, 2015, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-
5."

"On February 19, 2016, the Court entered an Order appointing a
lead plaintiff and approving the lead plaintiff's selection of
lead counsel.  On April 4, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint, which named the same defendants as
the original complaint and additionally alleged that the Company's
statements about the effectiveness of its internal control over
the tax function and use of EPS in evaluating quarterly financial
performance were false or misleading.

"We, together with the individual defendants expect to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint at the appropriate time."


CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: MOU Reached in Merger Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Checkpoint Systems, 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 27, 2016, that the Company reached a
memorandum of understanding reflecting their agreement to settle
all claims asserted in the Pennsylvania State Court Consolidated
Action related to proposed merger with CCL Industries Inc.

The Company said, "Since the announcement of the proposed merger
with CCL Industries Inc., Checkpoint and its directors have been
named as defendants in complaints filed by four shareholders. On
March 7, 2016 and March 8, 2016, respectively, plaintiffs Louis
Levine and Shiva Stein filed complaints in the Court of Common
Pleas for the Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Division (Pennsylvania State Court
Consolidated Action). On March 15, 2016, the Court consolidated
these actions; and on April 5, 2016, plaintiffs Levine and Stein
filed a consolidated complaint. On March 14, 2016, plaintiff
Feivel Gottleib Defined Benefit Pension Plan filed a complaint in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County Chancery
Division. On March 18, 2016, plaintiff Harold Litwin filed a
complaint in the Court of Common Pleas for the Philadelphia
County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Division,
which the Court entered an order to discontinue without prejudice
on April 6, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Litwin filed a second
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The complaints allege that our Board
breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the merger
agreement and seek an injunction preventing the consummation of
the merger, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
Mr. Litwin's federal complaint further alleges that our Board
violated the federal securities laws in connection with our
preliminary proxy statement filed on March 17, 2016.

"Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger
agreement or the merger may be filed in the future. There can be
no assurance that we or any of the other defendants will be
successful in the outcome of the pending or any potential future
lawsuits. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a
material adverse effect on our operations and liquidity. A
preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of
the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive
relief could indefinitely enjoin the completion of the merger.

"On April 29, 2016, Checkpoint and the other defendants in the
Pennsylvania State Court Consolidated Action executed a memorandum
of understanding reflecting their agreement to settle all claims
asserted in the Pennsylvania State Court Consolidated Action. The
parties subsequently executed a memorandum of understanding
reflecting their agreement. In connection with the settlement
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Checkpoint agreed
to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed
transaction with CCL, and to waive the provisions of the
nondisclosure agreement with a previous bidder that could have
potentially prevented that bidder from making a superior proposal.
The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter in a stipulation of settlement that will be subject to
customary conditions, including approval by the Court of Common
Pleas. We recorded an estimated settlement obligation of $0.1
million within other accrued expenses on the Consolidated Balance
Sheet and in litigation matters on the Consolidated Statement of
Operations during the first quarter of 2016."


CHEN SUSHI KING: "Spallone" Files Suit Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
Robert Spallone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chen Sushi King, LLC and John Does 1-10,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01684-RBH, (D.S.C., May
25, 2016), seeks actual damages, liquidated damages, attorney fees
and costs and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Chen Sushi King operates a restaurant, SOHO 544 located in Horry
County. Soho required Spallone to contribute three percent of
their net sales each evening to a tip pool intended for employees
who did not receive tips.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Tel: 843.579.7373
      Fax: 843.614.6417
      Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Dismissed Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Comtech Telecommunications Corp. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 5, 2016, that plaintiffs have dismissed their class action
lawsuits related to the Company's merger with TeleCommunication
Systems.

On December 9, 2015, a putative class action, Stanley Magee v.
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., was commenced by the filing of a
complaint in Maryland state court, in the Circuit Court for Anne
Arundel County, against TCS, members of the TCS Board of
Directors, Comtech and a wholly owned subsidiary of Comtech formed
to effect the Acquisition, Typhoon Acquisition Corp. ("Acquisition
Corp."). Three other complaints were filed on December 15, 2015:
James Morakis v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., in the same
Circuit Court; and Rafal Sawicz v. TeleCommunication Systems,
Inc., and Wesley Shaffron v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., both
filed in Maryland state court in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County. All of the complaints raise similar putative class claims
against TCS, members of the TCS Board, Comtech and Acquisition
Corp., in challenging (i) the process undertaken by TCS leading up
to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"),
dated November 22, 2015, among TCS, Comtech and Acquisition Corp.,
(ii) the consideration to be received by TCS stockholders and
(iii) the disclosures made in connection with the tender offer
made pursuant to the Merger Agreement.  In the actions brought in
Baltimore City, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaints and
the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against
completion of the Acquisition. On March 22, 2016 the court granted
defendants' motion, dismissing, with prejudice and without leave
to amend, all claims against the defendants. The two actions
brought in Anne Arundel County, were consolidated on February 10,
2016, and on April 12, 2016 the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
the action as to all defendants.


CREDIT BUREAU: "Hamlet" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. W. Virg.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Contessa Hamlet, Sandra Perez, and Dorothy Thompson, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Credit Bureau of
Napa County, Inc., doing business as: Chase Receivables; Alliance
Collection Agencies, Inc.; Credit Management, LP; Bonded
Collection Corporation; I.C. Systems, Inc.; Omni Credit Services,
Inc.; Plaza Associates; Professional Recovery Consultants, Inc.;
Van Ru Credit Corporation, the Defendants, Case no. 16-C-251, was
removed from Raleigh County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Beckley). The
Southern District Court assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-04851 to the
proceeding.

The Credit Bureau is a collection agency since 1953 located in
Sonoma, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
          HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
          P. O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
          Telephone: (304) 574 2727
          Facsimile: (304) 574 3709
          E-mail: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com

               - and -

          Jed R. Nolan, Esq.
          Ralph C. Young, Esq.
          Steven Broadwater Jr., Esq.
          HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
          P. O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840
          Telephone: (304) 574 2727
          E-mail: ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com
                  sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Albert C. Dunn, Jr.
          BAILEY & WYANT
          P. O. Box 3710
          Charleston, WV 25337-3710
          Telephone: (304) 345 4222
          Facsimile: (304) 343 3133
          E-mail: adunn@baileywyant.com


CVS PHARMACY: "Ramos" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Linda Ramos and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Holiday CVS, L.L.C.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 1:16-cv-21887-DPG, (S.D. Fla. May 25,
2016), seeks unpaid wages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc and Holiday CVS, L.L.C. are pharmacies in Miami-
Dade County where Plaintiff worked. Ramos claims to have been
denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: 305-416-5000
      Facsimile: 305-416-5005
      Email: agp@agppattorneys.com
             apetisco@agppattorneys.com
             rregueiro@agppattorneys.com
             pn@agppattorneys.com


DAVIE BLVD: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Niurka Soler Pineda and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. Davie Blvd Coin Laundry, Corp., Osial Castellon, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-21879-JEM, (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime wages still owing, double damages and reasonable
attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a launderer in Defendant's
commercial laundry business. Pineda seeks overtime pay.

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


DIANA'S COMMISSARY: "Garcia" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Elda Villagomez Garcia, Plaintiff, v. Diana's Commissary Food
Services, Inc., Alba Alvarez and Oscar Blanco, Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-01464, (S.D. Tex., May 25, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorney fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Garcia worked as a cook and food server on a food truck owned by
Defendants. She claims not being paid the required minimum wage or
overtime premium for those hours worked over 40 hours per
workweek.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: 713-868-3388
      Fax: 713-683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


DILIGENT HEALTH: "Meza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Angel Meza, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
employees and former employees of Defendants, Plaintiff(s), v.
Diligent Health, L.L.C. and Diligent Acquisitions, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01455, (S.D. Tex. May 24, 2016),
seeks unpaid wages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs
of suit and reasonable attorneys fees, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Diligent Health, L.L.C. is a Texas limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. Diligent
Acquisitions, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. Both operate
as Diligent Delivery Systems, where Meza worked as an account
manager. Meza claims he was denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Scott Fiddler, Esq.
      Andrew W. Reed, Esq.
      FIDDLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1004 Congress, 2nd Floor
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: 713-228-0070
      Fax: 713-228-0078
      Email: scott@fiddlerlaw.com


EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Bid to Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, 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 plaintiffs'
motion for leave to appeal in the New York Court of Appeals is
awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals.

Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the
"Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme
Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L.
Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of
former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.
Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The Company said, "One of the Second Class Actions named us and
our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided
and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class
Actions were consolidated on consent, and co-lead class counsel
was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name
us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary
damages."

"On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully
submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss
was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014. On January 12, 2015,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal
to include additional materials from the Original Class Action,
which the defendants opposed. The motion was denied on March 5,
2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal by filing their brief
and the appellate record with the court on March 23, 2015. Oral
argument on the appeal was held on October 28, 2015. On November
25, 2015, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the Second
Class Actions.

"The plaintiffs moved the appellate court for leave to appeal to
the New York Court of Appeals. On March 1, 2016, the appellate
court denied the motion. On March 31, 2016, the plaintiffs moved
for leave to appeal in the New York Court of Appeals. That motion
is fully submitted and awaiting a ruling from the Court of
Appeals.

"We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If an
appeal were successful and the court were ultimately to rule
against the defendants there is a risk that it could have a
material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of
monetary damages or other equitable relief. At this time, due to
the spectrum of remedies which may result from the outcome of the
matter and the difficulty in calculating and allocating damages
(if any) among the defendants, we cannot reasonably assess the
timing or outcome of this litigation and any related
indemnification obligations, estimate the amount of loss, or
assess their effect, if any, on our financial statements."


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Friedman" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Craig Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Endo International PLC, Rajiv Kanishka
Liyanaarchie De Silva and Suketu P. Upadhyay, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-03912 (S.D. N.Y., May 25, 2016), seeks damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their
reasonable attorney fees, expert fees and other costs and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Endo develops, manufactures, and distributes pharmaceutical
products and devices worldwide. The complaint says Endo's revenue
relies in part on favorable arrangements with companies that
manage prescription drug benefits for members of health plans --
but made false and/or misleading statements with respect to the
migraine therapy Frova -- and included questionable incentives
intended to increase sales revenues to such companies. Because of
this, company stock price fell $11.32 per share, or 42.57%, in two
days of trading.

Friedman purchased Endo common stock and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Telephone: (212) 697-6484
     Facsimile (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com


EURAMEX MANAGEMENT: "Jackson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jackson, on his own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Euramex Management Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-01692-SCJ (N.D. Ga., May 25, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of
litigation and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff is a former maintenance technician for the Defendant who
was denied overtime compensation during the terms of his
employment. Euramex Management Group, LLC. is a Limited Liability
Corporation formed under the laws of the State of Georgia which
provides delivery services throughout the metropolitan Atlanta
area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry A. Pankey, Esq.
     PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
     1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200
     Atlanta, GA 30338-4122
     Tel: 770-670-6250
     Fax: 770-670-6249
     Email: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com

FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Rauch" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus LLP. The case is
captioned Lea Rauch, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Forster & Garbus LLP, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02728-LDH-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2016). The
assigned is Hon. Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall.

Forster & Garbus is a debt collector.

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


FUTURE PAYMENT: Faces "Russell M. Holstein" Suit in D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Future Payment Technologies, L.P.
The case is captioned Russell M. Holstein, Ph.D., LLC, a New
Jersey limited liability company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Future Payment Technologies, L.P., and John Does 1-
10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03049-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., May
27, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Peter G. Sheridan.

Future Payment is a Dallas, Texas-based merchant account provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Nicholas Fiorovanti, Esq.
          GIORDANO HALLERAN & CIESLA PC
          125 Half Mile, Suite 300
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 741 3900
          E-mail: mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com


GERDAU SA: "Boland" Sues Over Depository Receipt Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
Donald P. Boland and Mary A. Boland, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs(s), v. Gerdau S.A.,
Andre Bier Gerdau Johannpeter, Harley Lorentz Scardoelli, Andre
Piras De Oliveira Dias and Osvaldo Burgos Schirmer, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03925, (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), seeks damages,
reasonable attorney fees, expert fees and other costs under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Gerdau produces and commercializes steel products worldwide. It is
located at Av. Farrapos 1811, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul,
Brazil CEP 90220-005. It allegedly was engaged in a bribery scheme
in collusion with Brazil Board of Tax Appeals; money laundering;
influence peddling; and made false/baseless reports about its
business, operations, and prospects. Its American depositary
receipts prices dropped after corrective disclosures.

Plaintiffs purchased American depositary receipts from Gerdau,
traded on the NYSE, and lost substantially.

Andre Bier Gerdau Johannpeter, Harley Lorentz Scardoelli, Andre
Piras De Oliveira Dias and Osvaldo Burgos Schirmer served as
members of the Board of Directors of Gerdau.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to July 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust 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 hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement in a New Jersey class
action has been moved to July 1, 2016, from May 20, 2016.

On October 1, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County by a
purported shareholder of Chambers. The action, captioned Elstein
v. Chambers Street Properties et al., Docket No. L-002254-15 (the
"New Jersey Action"), names as defendants Chambers, its board of
trustees and Legacy Gramercy. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the trustees of Chambers breached their fiduciary
duties to Chambers' shareholders by agreeing to the Merger after a
flawed sales process and by approving improper deal protection
terms in the merger agreement, and that Legacy Gramercy aided and
abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
also alleges that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
was materially misleading and incomplete. Plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the
Merger to the extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief
and an award of damages.

On December 3, 2015, the parties to the New Jersey Action entered
into a Stipulation of Settlement providing for the settlement of
the New Jersey Action. While the defendants in the New Jersey
Action continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing,
fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class
of shareholders of Chambers, and believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i)
avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of
further litigation in connection with the New Jersey Action, (ii)
finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or
could have been asserted against the defendants in the New Jersey
Action and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the
Superior Court of New Jersey ordering an injunction or damages in
connection with the New Jersey Action, Chambers and Legacy
Gramercy agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger,
all of which were set forth in Legacy Gramercy's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with on December 7, 2015. The Stipulation of
Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court
approval following notice to the Chambers shareholders.

On April 4, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a hearing to consider final approval for
May 20, 2016. If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims by shareholders of Chambers
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including in the Definitive Proxy Statement, pursuant to terms set
forth in the notice sent to Chambers' shareholders. There can be
no assurance that the court will approve the settlement. In the
event that the settlement is not approved or that the conditions
are not satisfied, the settlement may be terminated.

The defendants believe the lawsuits are without merit.


Plaintiff Margie Elstein is represented by:

     Lombardi Steven P
     374 Millburn Ave, Suite 301
     Millburn, NJ 07041-0000
     Tel: (973) 921-2860

Defendants Chambers Street Properties et al. are represented by:

     DUANE MORRIS LLP
     1940 Route 70 East, Suite 200
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08003-0000
     Tel: (856) 874-4200

Defendant Gramercy Property Trust Inc. is represented by:

     PORZIO BROMBERG NEWMAN PC
     100 Southgate Parkway
     PO Box 1997
     Morristown, NJ 07962-1997
     Tel: (973) 538-4006


HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against St. Paul Teachers' Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heartware International, 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 St. Paul
Teachers' Retirement Fund Association filed on January 22, 2016, a
putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the Company from June 10, 2014 through January
11, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint claims that the
Company and two of our executives violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements about, among other things, the Company's
response to the June 2014 FDA warning letter, the development of
the MVAD System and the acquisition of Valtech. The Complaint
claims that the disclosure of the purportedly false and misleading
statements caused the price of the Company's stock to drop, and
seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers
of the Company's stock during the Class Period.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may
arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this
point.

"As a result we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for
this action and accordingly have not accrued any liability
associated with this action," the Company said.

HeartWare is a medical device company that develops and
manufactures miniaturized implantable heart pumps, or ventricular
assist devices, to treat patients suffering from advanced heart
failure.


HIALEAH PARK: "Jordan" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Dawn Jordan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. South Florida Racing Association, LLC
d/b/a Hialeah Park Casino, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21893-DPG
(S.D. Fla., May 25, 2016) seeks damages and relief, including
liquidated damages, attorney fees, costs and expenses pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a casino where the Plaintiff worked as a poker
dealer and was by tipped employees. Defendant was paid below the
statutorily required minimum wage, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
      WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 463-2001
      Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
      E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com

          - and -

      Chad E. Levy, Esq.
      LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
      915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
      Telephone: (954) 763-5722
      Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
      E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com


HOUSTON BEER: "Reissig" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Reissig on behalf of herself individually, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Houston Beer Ventures I,
L.L.C. d/b/a World of Beer, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01517
(S.D. Tex., May 31, 2016), seeks equitable relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court,
and post-judgment interest for Defendants' willful failure to pay
overtime wages and compensation for hours worked, but not recorded
or paid, pursuant to and for failure to pay minimum wage for
Plaintiff individually, and all others similarly situated, in the
course of their employment with the Defendants, pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

World of Beer is your local craft beer tavern offering music,
beers, and more.

According to the complaint, Defendant knowingly, willfully, or
with reckless disregard carried out an illegal pattern and
practice of deceptive and fraudulent accounting practices
regarding compensation due to Plaintiff and to all others
similarly situated for hours worked, but not recorded or paid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Williams, Esq,
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS
          & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111
          Houston, TX 77079
          Telephone: (832) 230 4125
          Facsimile: (832) 230 5130


IMS HEALTH: "ARCare" Sues Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------
ARCare d/b/a Parkin Drug, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMS Health Inc. Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00080-JLH (E.D. Ark., May 27, 2016), seeks declaratory
relief and damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant sent an unsolicited advertisement via fax to Plaintiff's
machine without prior express invitation or permission.

ARcare is an Arkansas non-profit corporation located in Augusta,
Arkansas. It owns and operates the Parkin Drug Store and the Bald
Knob Medical Clinic.

IMS Health Inc. is a Connecticut entity that features global
information and technology services that help improve performance
and protect patient privacy. IMS Health Inc. owns Healthcare Data
Solutions.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     2800 Cantrell Rd., Suite 510
     Little Rock, AR 72202
     Telephone: (501) 312-8500
     Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
     Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Donato" Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Insys 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 complaint (captioned
Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case 2:16-cv-00302-
NVW) was filed on or about February 2, 2016, in the Arizona
District Court, against us and certain of our current and former
officers. This complaint was brought as a purported class action,
on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between March 3, 2015
and January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making
intentionally false and misleading statements regarding our
business and operations, therefore artificially inflating the
price of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend
this claim.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $45MM Cash Payment Anticipated in Q2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:ICPT) said in an exhibit
to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016, Intercept
had cash, cash equivalents and investment securities available for
sale of approximately $556.9 million, compared to $628.1 million
as of December 31, 2015. The cash payment for the $45 million net
expense for the settlement of the purported class action lawsuit
is anticipated to be made in the second quarter of 2016.

Intercept is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat
non-viral, progressive liver diseases.


KEMPER SPORTS: "Stapleton" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Stapleton, in his individual capacity and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kemper Sports Management,
Inc., The Mosaic Company, d/b/a Streamsong Resort, Defendants,
Case No. 8:16-cv-01305-VMC-TBM, (M.D. Fla., May 25, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid and underpaid wages and other damages under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Florida
Minimum Wage Act.

Stapleton has been working as a high end golf caddie and player
guide for Defendants' luxury golf resort. He did not receive wages
but instead was paid caddie fees charge from patron's payments.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
      ANDERSON DODSON, P.C.
      11 Broadway, Suite 615
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 961-7639
      Fax: (646) 998-8051
      Email: penn@andersondodson.com


KLX ENERGY: "Reed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
William Christopher Reed, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. KLX Energy Services, LLC and
WCW, LLC, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-00552-JRG, (E.D. Tex. May
24, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages still owing, damages
and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

WCW, LLC, now KLX Energy Services, LLC, is an oilfield services
company providing various cased hole services such as logging,
perforating, and pipe recovery where Reed worked as engineer or
technical field supervisor.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Porter, Esq.
      PORTER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      3311 Woods Blvd.
      Tyler, TX 75707
      Tel: (903) 561-5144
      Fax: (903) 705-6253
      Email: greg@gregporterlaw.com


KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: "McKinnon" Suit to Recover Illegal Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
West McKinnon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01664-CWH, (D.S.C. May 24, 2016), seeks overtime
wages, monetary and liquidated damages, injunctive relief, pre-
judgment interest, attorney fees and costs and such further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC is a limited liability company
organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of South
Carolina providing high-speed internet, cable television and
telephone services to customers in South Carolina where Plaintiff
currently works as a cable installation technician.

McKinnon alleges that his pay was subjected to illegal deductions
and that he was denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Scott Falls, Esq.
      Ashley L. Falls
      FALLS LEGAL, LLC
      245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
      Charleston, SC 29492
      Telephone: (843) 737-6040
      Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
      E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com
              ashley@falls-legal.com


KNOWLES CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Held in Audience IPO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Knowles Corporation 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 final settlement
approval hearing was scheduled for May 6, 2016, in the Audience
IPO-Related Litigation.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against Audience, the members of its board
of directors, two of its executive officers and the underwriters
of Audience's initial public offering ("IPO"). An amended
complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purported to be
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Audience's common
stock issued in or traceable to the IPO.

On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors of
Audience and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice.
The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and
contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs. On March 1, 2013,
defendants responded to the amended complaint by filing a demurrer
moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court overruled that
demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed a demurrer moving to
dismiss the amended complaint on other grounds. The court denied
the demurrer on September 4, 2013.

On January 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
certify a class. A trial had been scheduled for January 25, 2016
however, on July 23, 2015, an agreement in principle to settle the
action was reached, subject to approval of the court. On October
19, 2015, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement. The
settlement is subject to approval by the court and as of March 31,
2016, none of the members of the class have opted out of, or
objected to, the settlement. A final settlement approval hearing
had been scheduled for May 6, 2016.

If the court approves the settlement, Audience's insurance
carriers will pay $6.0 million to the class in exchange for
releases. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the settlement and class members will not opt out of the
settlement and file individual actions. As of March 31, 2016, the
Company has accrued $6.0 million of legal reserves with a
corresponding accounts receivable amount of $6.0 million on
Knowles Consolidated Balance Sheet.

More information on the case is available at:

     http://www.audiencesecuritiessettlement.com/

Knowles Corporation (NYSE: KN) is a market leader and global
supplier of advanced micro-acoustic, audio processing, and
specialty component solutions, serving the mobile consumer
electronics, communications, medical, military, aerospace, and
industrial markets.

On July 1, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of all of
the outstanding shares of common stock ("Shares") of Audience,
Inc. ("Audience"). The financial results of Audience were included
in the Company's consolidated statements of comprehensive earnings
and statement of cash flows beginning July 1, 2015 and the
consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2015.


KNOWLES CORPORATION: July 29 Hearing in Audience Acquisition Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Knowles Corporation 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 court is expected
to hold a final settlement hearing on July 29, 2016, in Audience
Acquisition-Related Litigation.

Between May 15 and May 29, 2015, five substantially similar class
action lawsuits challenging the proposed acquisition of Audience
were filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara
County, against the members of Audience's board of directors and
the Company, among others. The lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated into a single action. The complaints allege that the
members of Audience's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Audience shareholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition and that the Company aided and abetted these alleged
violations. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the acquisition, as
well as, among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's
fees and costs.

In June 2015, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for the settlement of the litigation on the terms and
conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU").
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, without agreeing that any of the
claims in the litigation have merit or that any supplemental
disclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule,
regulation or law, Audience agreed to make certain supplemental
and amended disclosures in its statement in support of the
acquisition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
settlement is subject to final approval by the court and members
of the class may opt out of, or object to, the settlement. Notices
summarizing the terms of the settlement have been circulated to
Audience shareholders and the court is expected to hold a final
settlement hearing on July 29, 2016. There can be no assurance
that the settlement will be finalized or that the court will
approve the settlement. As of March 31, 2016, the Company has
accrued $0.5 million of legal reserves on the Consolidated Balance
Sheet.

Knowles Corporation (NYSE: KN) is a market leader and global
supplier of advanced micro-acoustic, audio processing, and
specialty component solutions, serving the mobile consumer
electronics, communications, medical, military, aerospace, and
industrial markets.

On July 1, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of all of
the outstanding shares of common stock ("Shares") of Audience,
Inc. ("Audience"). The financial results of Audience were included
in the Company's consolidated statements of comprehensive earnings
and statement of cash flows beginning July 1, 2015 and the
consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2015.


LA PARIS CAFE: "Casanova" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando G. Casanova, Plaintiff, and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. La Paris Cafe Corp., a Florida
Corporation, Odalys Gonzalez, an individual, Lazaro Gonzalez, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21917-JEM, (S.D. Fla.,
May 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

La Paris Cafe is a Florida corporation operating a restaurant in
Miami-Dade County where Casanova was employed. He claims to have
been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary A. Costales, Esq.
      GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
      1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 375-9510
      Fax: (305) 375-9511


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Shabazz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Shabazz and Eliezer Suarez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03889, (S.D.N.Y.,
May 26, 2016), seeks all wages due, overtime wages, interest,
costs and disbursements and such other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Courtney Shabazz and Eliezer Suarez are former warehouse workers
and sales-floor associates who worked for Lumber Liquidators,
Inc., a retail hardwood flooring store in Bronx, New York.
Defendant allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff their full overtime
wages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Madzelan, Esq.
      SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
      445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 420-9300


MAGNA CHEK: Intersol Seeks Certification of Class in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned INTERSOL INDUSTRIES,
INCORPORATED, an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. MAGNA
CHEK INC., a Michigan corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
1:16-cv-05789 (N.D. Ill.), files with the Court its motion for
class certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662
F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Plaintiff proposes this class definition:

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

Intersol asserts that the Defendants sent it and others a
standardized form advertisement.  Intersol anticipates that the
proposed class definition will change after discovery defines the
precise contours of the class and the advertisements that were
sent.  Intersol asks for leave to submit a brief and other
evidence in support of the Motion after discovery about the class
elements has been completed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=StH6UnUw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MALABAR INVESTMENTS: "Torres" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Malabar Investments, Inc., and Does 1-
10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC621848 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 31, 2016), seeks declaratory judgement, damages and
restitution, and penalties, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide off-
duty meal periods, provide and authorize rest periods, pay wages,
for all hours worked, timely pay all wages owed upon termination
and provide accurate itemized wage statements.

Malabar Investments is a leading India-focused investment firm
founded in 2008 and backed by partners who collectively manage
over $15B in assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vache Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP, LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 507 8525
          Facsimile: (818) 507 8588
          E-mail: Vasche@KJTLawGroup.com


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: "Bishop-Bristol" Suit Transferred to Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Bishop-Bristol, on behalf of the Arthur J. Gallagher &
Company 401 (k) Savings and Thrift Plan and all other similarly
situated ERISA-covered employee pension benefit plans, Plaintiff,
v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00139 (January 29, 2016), has been transferred to the
United States District Court of Massachusetts on May 26, 2016,
Case No. 3:11-cv-30235-MGM.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, enjoinment from
further violations, equitable relief, damages, disgorgement of
profits, equitable lien, constructive trust, attorney fees and
expenses and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and
for breach of fiduciary duties.

Plaintiff is a participant in the Arthur J. Gallagher & Company
Savings and Thrift Plan and allege that the Defendant made
undisclosed, excessive, and unreasonable compensation from plan
assets.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Defendant is represented by :

     Daniel R. Thies, Esq.
     Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
     Mark B Blocker, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     One South Dearborn Street
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 853-7571
     Fax: (312) 853-7036
     Email: dthies@sidley.com

          - and -

     Jill M. O'Toole, Esq.
     SHIPMAN & GOODWIN
     One Constitution Plaza 18th Floor
     Hartford, CT 06103-1919
     Tel: (860) 251-5909
     Fax: (860) 251-5218
     Email: jotoole@goodwin.com


MASTEC INC: Two-Week Trial Period Set in March 2017
---------------------------------------------------
MasTec, 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
scheduled a two-week trial period beginning in March 2017 pending
its ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the case, Wrigley v.
MasTec, Inc.

In May 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"),
Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Florida, naming the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Jos‚ R. Mas, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
George L. Pita, as defendants. In August 2015, co-lead plaintiffs
were appointed, and an amended complaint was filed in October
2015. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a shareholder,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities laws
arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained in,
or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
and other statements, in each case with respect to accounting
matters that are the subject of the Audit Committee's independent
internal investigation. The amended complaint seeks damages
stemming from losses Plaintiffs claim to have suffered as a result
of purchasing Company securities at an allegedly inflated market
price.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
and the District Court has scheduled a two-week trial period
beginning in March 2017 pending its ruling on the Company's motion
to dismiss. The Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against it; however, there can be
no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense.


MCSS REST: Faces "Mendez" Suit in E.D.N.Y
-----------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against MCSS Rest. Corp. The case is
captioned Catalino Mendez, Eduardo Chocoj, and Israel Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. MCSS Rest. Corp., jointly and severally; AL-KEN
Corp., d/b/a Cross Bay Diner; Miko Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a
Parkview Diner; Michael Siderakis, jointly and severally; Christos
Siderakis, jointly and severally, and Konstantinos Siklas, jointly
and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02746 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 31, 2016).

MCSS is a restaurant located in Howard Beach, New York.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


MDL 2724: Plaintiffs Seek Transfer of Actions to E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tulsa Firefighters Health & Welfare Trust, UFCW Local
1500 Welfare Fund, International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 30 Benefits Fund, Nina Diamond, Twin Cities Pipe Trades
Welfare Fund, Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, Edward
Carpinelli, Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20 Insurance
Trust Fund and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund on May 19, 2016, asked
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an order
transferring and centralizing all currently filed and subsequent
"tag along" class actions alleging anticompetitive conduct in the
markets for generic digoxin and doxycycline to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The class actions are:

-- International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits
Fund v. Lannett Company, Inc. Case No. 2:16-cv-00990 (E.D. Pa.,
March 2, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent W. Landau
      Gary I. Smith
      HAUSFELD LLP
      325 Chestnut St., Suite 900
      Philadelphia, PA, 19106
      Tel. (215) 985-3270
      Fax. (215) 985-3271
      Email: blandau@hausfeld.com
             gsmith@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel. (415) 633-1908
      Fax. (415) 358-4980
      Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel. (202) 540-7200
      Fax. (202) 540-7201
      Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 213-8311
      Fax: (212) 779-0028
      Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com

-- NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Allergan PLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01371 (E.D. Pa., March 25, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
      230 Old Lancaster Road, Suite B
      Merion Station, PA 19066
      Telephone: 610/660-8000
      Fax: 610/660-8080
      Email: mhenzel@henzellaw.com

             - and -

      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Brian O. O'mara, Esq.
      Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
      Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
      Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: 619/231-1058
      Fax: 619/231-7423
      Email: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
             bomara@rgrdlaw.com
             xanb@rgrdlaw.com
             ashingler@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq.
      CAVANAGH & O'HARA
      2319 West Jefferson Street
      Springfield, IL 62702
      Telephone: 217/544-1771
      Fax: 217/544-9894

-- Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust, Plaintiff, v.
Allergan PLC, Defendant, Case No 2:16-cv-01388 (E.D. Pa., March
25, 2016) and;

-- UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, v. Allergan PLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02169 (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2016).

Plaintiffs in these two cases are represented by:

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Himes, Esq.
      Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
      Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
             jhimes@labaton.com
             kgarvey@labaton.com
             mperez@labaton.com

             - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 567-6565
      Fax: (215) 568-5872
      Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
             pcosta@finekaplan.com
             apessin@finekaplan.com

             - and -

      Mark Goldman, Esq.
      Paul Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN, SCARLATO & PENNY P.C.
      Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      Email: goldman@lawgsp.com
             scarlato@lawgsp.com

-- Pipe Trades Services MN, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01534 (E.D. Pa., April 4, 2016).
Plaintiff is represented by

      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel.: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
             khriebel@locklaw.com
             wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             ralockridge@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

             - and -

      Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq.
      Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
      BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 320
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 814-6750
      Fax: (215) 814-6764
      Email: ABolognese@bolognese-law.com
             jgrabar@bolognese-law.com

             - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LTD
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      John A. Macoretta, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Fax: (215) 496-6611
      Email: jkodroff@srkw-law.com
             jmacoretta@srkw-law.com
             jjagher@srkw-law.com

-- Edward Carpinelli, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01954 (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2016).
Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
      Chad A. Carder
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE JEFFREY B. GITTLEMAN
      3300 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
      Email: GRodos@barrack.com
             JGittleman@barrack.com
             Ccarder@barrack.com

             - and -

      R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
      Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
      Travis L. Manfredi, Esq.
      SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
      706 Sansome Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      Email: rick@saveri.com
             cadio@saveri.com
             travis@saveri.com

             - and -

      Randy Renick, Esq.
      HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP
      128 N. Fair Oaks Ave.
      Pasadena, CA 91001
      Telephone: 626 585-9600
      Facsimile: 626 585-9610
      Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com

             - and -

      Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
      Lisa A. Sleboda, Esq.
      Wendy K. Angulo, Esq.
      BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
      3771 Meadowcrest Drive
      Las Vegas, NV 89121
      Telephone: (781) 856-7650
      Facsimile: (702) 852-5726
      Email: rbonsignore@class-actions.us
             lsleboda@class-actions.us
             wangulo@class-actions.us

             - and -

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Phone: (415) 421-3400
      Fax: (415) 421-2234
      Email: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
             smacrae@steyerlaw.com

-- Fraternal Order Of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund
v. Lannett Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02031 (E.D.
Pa., April 27, 2016). Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Tel: (561) 270-0795
      Email: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Tel: 610-891-9880
      Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 722-7053
      Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
             bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com

-- Nina Diamond, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02077 (E.D. Pa., May 2, 2016). Plaintiff is
represented by:

      Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
      Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (973) 877-3819
           (267) 314-7980
      Fax: (973) 623-0858
      Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
             sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

             - and -

      Joseph Gentile, Esq.
      SARRAF GENTILE LLP
      14 Bond Street, Suite 212
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: 516-699-8890
      Facsimile: 516-699-8968
      Email: joseph@sarrafgentile.com

-- Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, v.
Lannett Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02191, (E.D.
Pa., May 6, 2016). Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Bolognese
      Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
      BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 320
      Two Penn Center Plaza
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 814-6750
      Email: jgrabar@bolognese-law.com

             - and -

      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
             khriebel@locklaw.com
             wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             raloclridge@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

             - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LTD
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      John A. Macoretta, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Fax: (215) 496-6611

             - and -

      William H. London, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201. Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Tel: (224) 632-4500
      Fax: (224) 632-4521
      Email: wlondon@klmlaw.com

             - and -

      Christian M. Sande
      CHRISTIAN SANDE LLC
      310 Clifton Avenue, 18 00
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 387-1430
      Fax: (612) 677-3078
      Email: Christian@christiansande.com

The actions accuse Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline.

According to the Plaintiffs, centralization of the Related Actions
will promote the goals of 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 by conserving
judicial resources, reducing litigation costs, preventing
potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings, eliminating duplicative
discovery, and permitting the cases to proceed more efficiently.

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

Allergan PLC is a global pharmaceutical company into global
generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care, urology,
gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and infectious
diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S. Administrative
Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.

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

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


MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: "Carter" Suit Moved to E.D. Ark.
----------------------------------------------------
Sandra Carter, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Meridian Financial
Services Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 60CV-16-01941, was removed
from Circuit Court of Pulaski County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The Eastern
District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00296-DPM to the
proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. D. P. Marshall Jr.

Meridian Financial provides third-party collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy James Cullen, Esq.
          CULLEN & CO., PLLC
          Post Office Box 3255
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3255
          Telephone: (501) 370 4800
          E-mail: tim@cullenandcompany.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashley R. Hudson, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3740
          Telephone: (501) 975 3116
          Facsimile: (501) 975 3001
          E-mail: ashley.hudson@kutakrock.com


MERITOR INC: Faces Antitrust Class Actions in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that the company was served
in March 2016, with a complaint filed against the company and
other defendants in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint is a proposed class
action and alleges that the company violated federal and state
antitrust and other laws in connection with a former business of
the company's that manufactured and sold exhaust systems for
automobiles. The alleged class is comprised of persons and
entities that purchased or leased a passenger vehicle during a
specified time period. In April the Company was served with a
virtually identical suit also naming the company as a defendant on
behalf of a purported class of automobile dealers.

The company is reviewing the complaints and developing its
response and intends to vigorously defend the claims. At this
point, the company cannot estimate the ultimate impact on the
company, and there can be no assurance that the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on the consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.


Mavenir -- styled Nakoa v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10757-VCP and
Turberg v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10779-VCP -- were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5 and 11, 2015, respectively.
On March 23, 2015, the Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating these two complaints under the caption In re Mavenir
Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10757-VCP.
On April 22, 2015, a Mavenir stockholder filed a separate
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled
Isabel S. Rivera Cruz v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et al., C.A.
No. 10936-VCP. The plaintiff in the Cruz action did not effect
service of the complaint on the Company or any other named
defendant."

"These stockholder complaints alleged, in part, that Mavenir's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
acquisition of Mavenir, and that we aided and abetted such alleged
fiduciary breaches. On September 14, 2015 and January 22, 2016,
the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action filed amended
complaints, neither of which names us as a defendant. The
operative complaint in the consolidated action, filed on January
22, 2016, names our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir as a
defendant. That complaint asserts a single cause of action against
our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir for an alleged breach of
fiduciary duty relating to certain disclosures made to former
Mavenir shareholders in connection with the acquisition of
Mavenir. None of the complaints stated any amount of damages.

"On April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action entered
into a settlement term sheet which contemplates the settlement of
the consolidated action and the release of various persons and
entities, including but not limited to the Company and the
defendants in the consolidated action (including our subsidiary
formerly known as Mavenir), in consideration for which defendants
and their insurer(s) will cause the sum of $3 million to be paid
into a common fund for the class. The proposed settlement remains
subject to the approval of the Court of Chancery, which has not
yet scheduled a hearing to consider the proposed settlement.

"Also on April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action
entered into a stipulation and proposed order regarding the
payment of mootness attorneys' fees to counsel for the plaintiffs
in the consolidated action, pertaining to certain claims mooted at
an earlier stage of the consolidated action. The Court of Chancery
granted that proposed order on April 8, 2016.

"Our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir has indemnified the
former directors of Mavenir who are defendants in the lawsuits. We
continue to believe that the allegations in all of the complaints
are without merit. Although we do not believe such litigation will
have a material impact on our financial condition or results of
operations, we cannot predict with certainty any such impact and
whether the Court of Chancery will approve the proposed settlement
of the consolidated action or the outcome of such litigation."


MITEL NETWORKS: Approval of Stockholder Actions Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Mitel Networks Corporation 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 settlement reached
in a consolidated stockholder class action remains subject to
court approval.

The Company said, "In March and April, 2015, we were named a
defendant in three purported stockholder class actions, two of
which have been consolidated, that challenge the acquisition of
Mavenir. Specifically, two stockholder actions challenging the
acquisition of Mavenir -- styled Nakoa v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No.
10757-VCP and Turberg v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10779-VCP -- were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5 and 11, 2015,
respectively. On March 23, 2015, the Court of Chancery entered an
order consolidating these two complaints under the caption In re
Mavenir Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
10757-VCP. On April 22, 2015, a Mavenir stockholder filed a
separate complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action
styled Isabel S. Rivera Cruz v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et
al., C.A. No. 10936-VCP. The plaintiff in the Cruz action did not
effect service of the complaint on the Company or any other named
defendant."

"These stockholder complaints alleged, in part, that Mavenir's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
acquisition of Mavenir, and that we aided and abetted such alleged
fiduciary breaches. On September 14, 2015 and January 22, 2016,
the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action filed amended
complaints, neither of which names us as a defendant. The
operative complaint in the consolidated action, filed on January
22, 2016, names our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir as a
defendant. That complaint asserts a single cause of action against
our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir for an alleged breach of
fiduciary duty relating to certain disclosures made to former
Mavenir shareholders in connection with the acquisition of
Mavenir. None of the complaints stated any amount of damages.

"On April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action entered
into a settlement term sheet which contemplates the settlement of
the consolidated action and the release of various persons and
entities, including but not limited to the Company and the
defendants in the consolidated action (including our subsidiary
formerly known as Mavenir), in consideration for which defendants
and their insurer(s) will cause the sum of $3 million to be paid
into a common fund for the class. The proposed settlement remains
subject to the approval of the Court of Chancery, which has not
yet scheduled a hearing to consider the proposed settlement.

"Also on April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action
entered into a stipulation and proposed order regarding the
payment of mootness attorneys' fees to counsel for the plaintiffs
in the consolidated action, pertaining to certain claims mooted at
an earlier stage of the consolidated action. The Court of Chancery
granted that proposed order on April 8, 2016.

"Our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir has indemnified the
former directors of Mavenir who are defendants in the lawsuits. We
continue to believe that the allegations in all of the complaints
are without merit. Although we do not believe such litigation will
have a material impact on our financial condition or results of
operations, we cannot predict with certainty any such impact and
whether the Court of Chancery will approve the proposed settlement
of the consolidated action or the outcome of such litigation."


MP 3 CONSTRUCTION: "Carruega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorenzo Carrauega, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MP 3 Construction Services, LLC, a
Florida limited Liability Company, and Jose Mendoza, individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00421-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., May 31,
2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, from at least November 2015 and
continuing through February 2016, the Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff at rate of one and one-half time Plaintiff's
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single work week.

MP 3 Construction is a general contractors company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
          4423 Del Prado Blvd S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549 6689
          E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


NASDAQ INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, 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 was named
as a defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court entered an order
granting Nasdaq's motion to dismiss the complaint. The period
during which an appeal of the decision may be filed has not yet
expired.


NASDAQ INC: Appeal in City of Providence Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, 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 named
as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global
Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on
April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead
counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The
amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as
well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading
system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to
manipulate the markets through high-frequency trading; the amended
complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3,
2014," the Company said. "In response, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the
same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations."

"We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
January 23, 2015. The court heard oral argument on the motion on
June 18, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an
order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with
prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were
foreclosed by absolute immunity and in any event that the
plaintiffs failed to state any claim.

"The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Given the
preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact
that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate
what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However,
we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are
without merit and intend to litigate the appeal vigorously."


NASDAQ INC: Oral Argument Heard in "Lanier" Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, 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 United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has heard oral argument in
the appeal in the "Lanier" class action.

The Company is named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier
v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v.
BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v.
Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed
between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three
complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of
a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by
national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges
provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to
others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for
dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed
under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories
under state law based on these alleged breaches.

The Company said, "On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to
dismiss the complaints. The court heard oral argument on the
motion on January 16, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the district court
entered an order dismissing the complaints in their entirety with
prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act
and in any event do not state a claim under the contracts. The
plaintiff has appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit
heard oral argument on March 3, 2016."

"Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly
the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to
estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.
However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the
claims are without merit and intend to litigate the appeal
vigorously."


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shareholder Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings 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
continues to defend a shareholder litigation.

On June 2, 2015, a shareholder class action complaint captioned
City of St Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., 15 Civ. 61170. (S.D. Fla.) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against us and certain of our executive
officers asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On October 16, 2015,
an amended class action complaint was filed that adds (i) claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended and (ii) additional defendants, comprising our former
Chief Financial Officer, certain directors and underwriters for
our secondary public offering of our common stock on March 26,
2015. The amended complaint alleges that the offering materials
contained materially false and misleading statements and material
omissions regarding the negative impact of declining interest
rates on our overall financial results and the contrasting impact
of declining interest rates on our servicing business on the one
hand and our originations business on the other. The amended
complaint also alleges that between May 8, 2014 and May 4, 2015,
the Company and certain of the individual defendants made
materially false and misleading statements to investors designed
to create the perception of growth in our originations business.
The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers of our
common stock and unspecified damages and other relief. We intend
to vigorously defend the action.


NIKIL INC: "Warciak" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Warciak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nikil, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2016-CH-05729, was removed from Circuit Court of Cook
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago). The Northern District Court assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-05731 to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is
Hon. Thomas M. Durkin.

Nikil is an organization in the custom computer programming
services industry located in Palo Alto, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Jonathan Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven P. Mandell, Esq.
          MANDELL MENKES LLC
          One North Franklin, Suite 3600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 251-1001
          E-mail: smandell@mandellmenkes.com


ON DECK CAPITAL: Court Approved Schedule for Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Deck Capital, 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 approved a
schedule allowing the defendants 60 days to file a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action lawsuit.

Two separate putative class actions were filed in August 2015 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against us, certain of our executive officers, our directors
and certain or all of the underwriters of our initial public
offering. The suits allege that the registration statement and
prospectus for our initial public offering contained materially
false and misleading statements regarding, or failed to disclose,
certain information in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The suits seek a determination that the case is a proper
class action and/or certification of the plaintiff as a class
representative, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages
and/or unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
fees and costs.

On February 18, 2016, the court issued an order (1) consolidating
the two cases, (2) selecting the lead plaintiff and (3) appointing
lead class counsel.

On March 18, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On April 14, 2016, the court approved a schedule allowing the
defendants 60 days to file a motion to dismiss, allowing the
plaintiff to file any opposition within 60 days of the filing of
the motion to dismiss and allowing the defendants to file a reply
within 30 days after the filing of plaintiff's opposition.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these consolidated
matters, although at this time we cannot predict the outcome," the
Company said.

On Deck is an online platform for small business lending.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Orexigen 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 the Company's
motion to dismiss a class action complaint remains pending.

On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in the
United States District Court, for the Southern District of
California, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following
day, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz
v. Orexigen, et al., asserting substantially similar claims.

On June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and
appointed a lead plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint
purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of
the Company's stock between March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It
alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the interim results and
termination of the Light Study. The consolidated complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or
injunctive relief. On

October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. The court has not yet ruled on the
Company's motion.

Although management believes that the claims lack merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously, there are uncertainties
inherent in any litigation and the Company cannot predict the
outcome. As 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 attorney's fees.

Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the treatment
of obesity.


OVASCIENCE INC: Two Class Actions in Massachusetts Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ovascience, 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 Suffolk County
Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has granted
the parties' joint motion to consolidate two class action cases
and appoint co-lead plaintiffs.

The Company said, "On October 9, 2015, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "Superior Court") against us,
several of our officers and directors and certain of the
underwriters from our January 2015 follow-on public offering of
our common stock. The plaintiffs purport to represent those
persons who purchased shares of our common stock pursuant or
traceable to our January 2015 follow-on public offering. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in the Company's January 2015 Registration Statement
and incorporated offering materials. Plaintiffs allege violations
of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and seek, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission, pre-and post-judgment interest and fees,
costs and disbursements."

"On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of
removal with the Federal District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "District Court"). On December 30, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to the Superior
Court. Oral argument on the motion to remand was held on February
19, 2016. On February 23, 2016, the District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to the Superior Court.

"On February 26, 2016, a second purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, alleging substantially the same claims against the
same parties as the action filed on October 9, 2015. On April 4,
2016, the Superior Court granted the parties' joint motion to
consolidate the two cases and appoint co-lead plaintiffs, and
ordered the co-lead plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated
complaint within sixty days.

"We believe that the consolidated action is without merit and
intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no
assurance, however, that we will be successful. A resolution of
this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could
have a material effect on our consolidated financial position and
results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is
resolved. At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses,
if any, related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience is a global fertility company focused on the discovery,
development, and commercialization of new fertility treatment
options for women.


PACIFIC OCEAN TRANS: "Barnwell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
La Robert Barnwell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pacific Ocean
Transportation, Inc., a California Company, the Defendant, Case
No. BC622164 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid hourly wage or minimum wage plus liquidated damages in an
additional amount equal to the total amount of wages unlawfully
withheld during the Class Period for truck drivers' rest period,
pursuant to California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the members of the
Class did not receive minimum wage for their on-duty time when
they spent taking statutory rest breaks and on Non Driving Tasks.

Pacific Ocean Transportation is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running a freight hauling business
from Compton, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 512
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614
          E-mail: cja@ackerrnanntilajef.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed
          MELMED LAW GROUP
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824 3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862 6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com


PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Merger Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Pennantpark Floating Rate Capital Ltd. 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
litigation in connection with its acquisition of MCG Capital
Corporation has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On August 18, 2015, we completed the
acquisition of MCG Capital Corporation, or MCG, pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, dated as of
April 28, 2015, by and among MCG, our Investment Adviser and the
Company. As a result of the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, MCG was ultimately merged with and into PFLT
Funding II, LLC with PFLT Funding II, LLC as the surviving
company."

"Between May 6, 2015, and May 18, 2015, a number of putative class
action lawsuits were filed by former stockholders of MCG
challenging our acquisition of MCG in the Delaware Court of
Chancery. The consolidated complaint alleged that MCG's directors
violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, not
protecting against their supposed conflicts of interest and
failing to take steps to maximize the consideration to be received
by MCG's former stockholders in our acquisition of MCG. The
consolidated complaint also alleged that the Company and the
Investment Adviser aided and abetted the MCG directors' purported
breach of fiduciary duties. We believe that the consolidated
complaint is without merit. Subsequent to September 30, 2015, the
litigation in connection with our acquisition of MCG was
dismissed."


PERFUME CENTER: Faces "Ahmad" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Perfume Center of America, Inc.
The case is captioned Waqar Ahmad, Upendra Ghimire, Jose Fabian
and Larry Cavanaugh, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Perfume Center of America,
Inc. and Kanak Golia, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02748
(E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2016).

Perfume Center engages in the wholesale distribution of perfume
and perfume related products in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.


PET CLUB: Faces "Thornsburry" Suit in D. Ariz.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Pet Club LLC. The case is
captioned Lacey Thornsburry and Valentina Woodruff, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Pet Club LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club
Ahwatukee LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club
Arrowhead LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club
Avondale LLC, an Arizona limited liability company;
Pet Club Casa Grande LLC, an Arizona limited liability company;
Pet Club Cave Creek LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet
Club Chandler Heights LLC, an Arizona limited liability company;
Pet Club Chandler LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet
Club Chino Valley LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Pet
Club Cotton Lane LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet
Club Desert Ridge LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet
Club Dobson LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club
East Tucson LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club
Gilbert LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club
Glendale LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Las
Sendas LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Laveen
LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Lincoln LLC,
an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Marana LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Maricopa LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Mill LLC, an Arizona
limited liability company;
Pet Club Moon Valley LLC, an Arizona limited liability company;
Pet Club N Gilbert LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet
Club Northern LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club
North Mesa LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club
North Scottsdale LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01604-JZB (D. Ariz., May 24, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. John Z Boyle.

Pet Club supplies Arizona with a variety of premium pet products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad Alan Denton, Esq.
          Timothy Farnsworth Coons, Esq.
          DENTON PETERSON PC
          1930 N Arboleda Rd., Ste. 200
          Mesa, AZ 85213
          Telephone: (480) 325 9900
          Facsimile: (480) 655 7099
          E-mail: Brad@DentonPeterson.com
                  Timothy@DentonPeterson.com


PHARMAVITE LLC: Lost Bid to Decertify Classes in "Barrera" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court filed a civil minutes relating to several proceedings
before the Hon. Christina A. Snyder in the lawsuit titled LOREAN
BARRERA v. PHARMAVITE, LLC, Case No. 2:11-cv-04153-CAS-AGR (C.D.
Cal.).

The Court denies Pharmavite's motion to decertify the classes,
denies Pharmavite's motion for judicial estoppel, denies
Pharmavite's motion for summary judgment, and denies the
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

Plaintiff Lorean Barrera, a secretary at an auto body shop, filed
the putative class action in connection with the marketing and
sales of Pharmavite's "TripleFlex" dietary supplements.  On
November 19, 2014, the Court certified these two classes:

     (1) UCL California-Only Class: All consumers in California
         who, within the applicable statute of limitations,
         purchased Pharmavite's TripleFlex Products; and

     (2) CLRA California-Only Class: All consumers in California
         who, within the applicable statute of limitations,
         purchased Pharmavite's TripleFlex Products.

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


RAINBOW ENTERPRISES: "Pesenecker" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Pesenecker and Chase Crews, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs,
v. Rainbow Enterprises, Inc., BHHG Services, Inc., Big Boy of Flat
Rock, Inc., Samir M. Saleh and Glen D. Linson, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-11886-RHC-RSW, (E.D. Mi., May 25, 2016), seeks unpaid
wages owed, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce
Opportunity Act.

Pesenecker worked as a bus boy and a dishwasher for the
Defendants' restaurant located at 27050 Telegraph Rd. Flat Rock,
MI 48134, while Crews worked as a Cook. Plaintiffs claim that they
were denied overtime pay.

           Pesenecker Seeks Certification of FLSA Class

The Plaintiffs have filed their motion for conditional class
certification of this class:

     All current and former restaurant employees who worked for
     Defendants at 27050 Telegraph Rd, Flat Rock, MI 48134, who
     worked in excess of forty (40) in one workweek and were not
     paid 1.5 times their pay rate for the hours worked in excess
     of forty (40) hours.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order authorizing
the dissemination of Collective Group notice to all similarly
situated persons pursuant to the "opt-in" mechanism for collective
actions authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act; permit a 90-
day opt-in period for additional plaintiffs to join this
litigation and order the Defendant to provide each Collective
Group Member's employee ID number, last known telephone number and
e-mail address, and the last four digits of their Social Security
number within 30 days from the entry of an appropriate Order;
appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for all employees,
who join the Action without counsel of their own; and granting
other relief.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692-9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692-9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Strader Second Amended Complaint Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC 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
plaintiffs in the case, Strader and Hall v. PHH Corporation, et
al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California),
have filed a second amended complaint.

This is a purported class action brought by two California
residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of
its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint
venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section
8(a) of RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek to represent two subclasses
comprised of all persons in the United States who, since January
31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage loan from either
(a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its subsidiaries, or (b) one of
the mortgage services managed by PHH Corporation for other
lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title insurance or settlement
services to TRG or one of its subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that PHH Home Loans, LLC operates in violation
of RESPA and that the other defendants violate RESPA by referring
business to one another under agreements or arrangements that are
prohibited by RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek treble damages and an award
of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case claiming that not only do the claims lack merit, but they are
time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. On
April 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On April
21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

"We expect to file a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the near future," the Company said.

The case raises significant and various previously unlitigated
claims.  As with all class action litigation, the case is
inherently complex and subject to many uncertainties.  We believe
that we and the joint venture have complied with RESPA, the
regulations promulgated thereunder and existing regulatory
guidance. There can be no assurance, however, that if the action
continues and a large class is subsequently certified, the
plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage award, penalties and
other remedies.  Given the early stage of this case and the novel
claims and issues presented, we cannot estimate a range of
reasonably potential losses for this litigation.  The Company will
vigorously defend this action.


REED HEIN: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT, Wages, Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Anderson and Tracey Anderson, individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
Reed Hein & Associates LLC, a Washington Limited Liability
Company, d/b/a Timeshare Exit Team, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00785 (W.D. Wash., May 27, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime and minimum wages, unpaid employer taxes, unpaid
compensation benefits, unpaid benefits, compensatory and
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reed Hein & Associates LLC, operating as Timeshare Exit Team, is a
Washington limited liability company with its corporate
headquarters in Lynnwood, Washington. It is a consumer protection
firm that assists timeshare owners dissolving their timeshare
contracts. Michael Anderson and Tracey Anderson worked as client
advisors for the Defendant. They claim to be misclassified as
independent contractors thus denied the benefits of regular
employees.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donald W. Heyrich, Esq.
     Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq.
     Rachel M. Emens, Esq.
     HKMEMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
     600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 838-2504
     Fax: (206) 838-2505
     Email: dheyrich@hkm.com
            jrittereiser@hkm.com
            remens@hkm.com

          - and -

     Peter Stutheit, WSBA #32090
     STUTHEIT KALIN LLC
     308 SW First Avenue, Suite 325
     Portland, OR 97204
     Tel: (503) 493-7488
     Fax: (503) 715-5670
     Email: peter@stutheitkalin.com


RETROPHIN INC: June 10 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------
Retrophin, 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 scheduled
a final approval hearing for June 10, 2016, for the settlement of
a class action lawsuit.

On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Marc
Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No.
14-cv-8376). On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was
filed in the Southern District of New York against the same
defendants (Sandler v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915). The
complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants'
public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013
through September 30, 2014.

In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan filed a motion to appoint
lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel, and to consolidate the
two related actions.

On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions,
appointed lead plaintiff, and approved lead counsel. Lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 4, 2015,
which again named the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Mr. Panoff, and Mr.
Paley as defendants, but which also named Steven Richardson,
Stephen Aselage, and Cornelius Golding as additional defendants.

On May 26, 2015, with the consent of the lead plaintiff, the court
ordered that the claims against Mr. Paley be dismissed. The
remaining defendants, including the Company, filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which were fully-
briefed as of October 29, 2015.

On December 1, 2015, counsel jointly informed the Court that the
parties had reached a comprehensive settlement, subject to Court
approval. On January 29, 2016, the parties filed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement and supporting papers,
including a stipulation of settlement.

On February 2, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing for June 10,
2016. Any amounts owed by the Company would be covered by Director
and Officer Insurance.


RGS FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Zolandz" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Zolandz moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint in the lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RGS
FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00650-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff also asks the Court both to stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Rb6gpQj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RICHARD SNYDER: "Nappier" Suit Moved to W.D. Mich.
-------------------------------------------------
Tamara Nappier, as mother and next friend of Takarie Nappier, a
minor child, on behalf of Takarie Nappier and a class of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Richard Snyder,
individually; Darnell Earley, individually; Gerald Ambrose,
individually; Daniel Wyant, individually and in his official
capacity; Liane Shekter Smith, individually and in her official
capacity; Stephen Busch, individually and in his official
capacity; Patrick Cook, individually and in his official capacity;
Michael Prysby, individually and in his official capacity; Bradley
Wurfel, individually and in his official capacity; Eden Wells,
individually and in her official capacity;
Nick Lyon, individually and in his official capacity; Nancy
Peeler, individually and in her official capacity; Robert Scott,
individually and in his official capacity, the Defendants, Case
no. 16-000071-MM, was removed from the Court of Claims, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Southern
Division). The Western District Court assigned Case no. 1:16-cv-
00636 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant Stephen Busch is represented by:

          Philip A. Grashoff Jr., Esq.
          KOTZ SANGSTER WYSOCKI PC
          36700 Woodward Ave., Ste. 202
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 646 2073
          E-mail: pgrashoff@kotzsangster.com


ROSA MEXICANO: "Huerta" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Francisco Huerta, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. West 62
Operating LLC, Rosa Mexicano Murray, LLC, Rosa Mexicano USQ, LLC,
Fenix Rest. Inc. and Howard Greenstone, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03876 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2016) seeks unpaid minimum wages due
to invalid tip credit, unpaid wages due to time shaving,
unreimbursed business-related expenses and maintenance/repair
costs, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages and attorney fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant under the common trade name Rosa
Mexicano in four locations in New York City with Howard Greenstone
as owner and principal officer. Huerta was hired as a deliveryman
for the Rosa Mexicano Lincoln Center location.

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
      Tel: 212-465-1188
      Fax: 212-465-1181


ROSKO HOLDINGS: "Sangworrakan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suthipat Sangworrakan, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rosko Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a
SONG), Andrew Aparicio Jerro, Ana Popermhem, and Ariel Aparicio,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02745 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the
"spread of hours" order of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked for
Defendants without any compensation for any of the hours that he
worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of his hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff for
any hours he worked.

Song is a Thai restaurant owned by Andrew Aparicio Jerro, Ana
Popermhem, and Ariel Aparicio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ROUSE PROPERTIES: Stockholders File Action Against Brookfield
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rouse Properties, 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 Company
stockholders filed on April 11, 2016, a putative class action
lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against
the members of the Special Committee, Brookfield Asset Management,
BPY and the Brookfield entities party to the merger agreement
(Brookfield Asset Management, BPY and such other Brookfield
entities being referred to as the "Brookfield Parties"), alleging
that: (i) the Brookfield Parties, as purported controlling
stockholders of the Company, breached their fiduciary duties to
Company stockholders by causing the Company to agree to the merger
transactions for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an
unfair process; (ii) the Special Committee members breached their
fiduciary duties to Company stockholders by agreeing to sell the
Company for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an
unreasonable process; and (iii) the Brookfield Parties, in the
alternative, aided and abetted the Special Committee members'
alleged breaches. In particular, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that the Brookfield Parties used their purported
"control" of the Company to obtain a below-market price, that the
Special Committee was "tainted by conflicts," and that the Special
Committee's attempts to seek an alternative buyer were
"perfunctory." Among other relief, the plaintiffs are seeking
injunctive relief preventing the parties from consummating the
merger transactions, rescissionary damages in the event the merger
transactions are consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On February 25, 2016, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement (and other related agreements) to be acquired by
affiliates of Brookfield Asset Management Inc. ("Brookfield Asset
Management" and, together with its affiliates, "Brookfield") for
$18.25 per share in an all-cash transaction, a portion of which
may be paid out as a special dividend.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the lawsuit are
without merit and the Special Committee intends to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.


S & A UNIFIED: "Shulyar" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
Mariya Shulyar, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. S & A Unified Home Care,
Inc. and Angela Marduchayena, the Defendants, Case No. 154389/2016
(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 New
York City Administrative Code (NYC).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have 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" compensation.

S&A is primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide
services at the residences of its clients.

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
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


SAGE PAYMENT: Faces "ARcare" Suit in E.D. Ark.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sage Payment Solutions Inc. The
case is captioned ARcare Inc., an Arkansas Corporation, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Sage Payment Solutions Inc., and Sage Software Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00079-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 27, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. D. P. Marshall Jr.

Sage Payment provides payment processing products and services to
entrepreneurs, small businesses, and midsized and larger
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Craig, Esq.
          Randall Keith Pulliam
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 321 8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312 8505
          E-mail: jcraig@cbplaw.com
                  rpulliam@cbplaw.com


SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS: "Beck" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Doug Beck, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Saint-Gobain
Containers Inc., an unknown business entity, Ardagh Glass Inc.,
and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case no. BC603229, was
removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court
assigned Case no. 2:16-cv-03638 to the proceeding.

Saint-Gobain designs, manufactures and distributes building and
high-performance materials.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings 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
and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss an amended class
action complaint remains pending.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6,
2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned
Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783,
which was subsequently removed to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the
Kumar Lawsuit).

Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against
the Company, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities
between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the
Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June
2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September
2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges
that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain
subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements
concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy
of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class
action complaint.

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


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Parmelee and Benson Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings 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 on March 18,
2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas,
captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016, another
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned
Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-
cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the
Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a
class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired
our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The
complaints in the Parmelee Lawsuit and Benson Lawsuit allege that
the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly
Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public
disclosures, in connection with the Company's change in its
methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and
correction of such allowance for prior periods in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.
The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seek
damages and other relief.


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Romero" Suit in S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Securus Technologies, Inc. The
case is captioned Juan Romero and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, Securus Technologies,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01283-JM-MDD (S.D. Cal., May
27, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller.

Securus is an American for-profit prison technology company based
in Dallas, Texas

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Rivera" Suit in D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------
Angel Rivera, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. a
Utah Corporation, and John and Jane Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-03112-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., May 31, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. Peter G. Sheridan.

Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as
Fairbanks Capital Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 0866
          E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com
                  philip@sternthomasson.com


SENTRY SURVEILLANCE: "Chemaly" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Chemaly, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Sentry Surveillance, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01723-WSD, (N.D. Ga., May 26, 2016),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation with liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney fees and expenses under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Sentry is a Georgia corporation that manufactures, sells, installs
and services surveillance equipment and systems to customers
throughout the United States. Its principal place of business is
located in Kennesaw, Georgia.

Plaintiff worked as an inside sales employee for the Defendants
and claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Mixon, Esq.
      J. Stephen Mixon, Esq.
      Alex R. Roberson, Esq.
      MILLAR & MIXON, LLC
      1691 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 150
      Atlanta, GA 30349
      Telephone: (770) 955-0100
      Facsimile: (678) 999-5039


SETERUS INC: Acquired Unlawful Profit, "Rozwadowska" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jolanta Rozwadowska, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Seterus, Inc. f/k/a
IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc., and QBE First
Insurance Agency, Inc. f/k/a NGLS Insurance Services, Inc., the
Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 2016CH07135 (Cook Cty. Ct., May
24, 2016), seeks restitution for Defendants' unlawful conduct, as
well as interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully acquired the
profits from the force-placed insurance policies by appreciating
and knowing that the fees imposed on Rozwadowska and Class members
were more expensive than those available in the open market and
retaining the benefits conferred on them.

Seterus is a fully integrated loan servicing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
          Amalia S. Newton, Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. DeRe, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440 4180
          E-mail: www.attomeyzim.com
                  tom@attorneyzim.com
                  amy@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com
                  maebetty@attorneyzim.com

               - and -

          Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          ARTHUR C. CZAJA & ASSOCIATES
          7521 N. Milwaukee Avenue
          Niles, IL 60714
          Telephone: (847) 647 2106
          Facsimile: (847) 647-2057
          E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com


SHIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Orozi" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Shift Technologies Inc. The case
is captioned Michael Orozi, Eric Holt, Loretta Greene, and William
Alitsky, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Shift Technologies Inc., Shift
Operations LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
CGC 16 552307 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2016).

Shift Technologies is a pioneering technology and business
consulting firm that enables organizations meet their digital
transformation agenda.


SIEMENS INDUSTRY: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Jimenez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Siemens Industry, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC621487 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 24, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest
periods, penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees or former employees within the State of
California a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which
the employees worked more than five hours in a workday, and a
second 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the
employees worked in excess often 10 hours in a work day. The
Defendants also failed to provide compensation for such unprovided
meal periods.

The Defendants are manufacturers of switchgear and switchboard
apparatus.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James Alexander De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
          E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com
                  jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com


SINGLECARE SERVICES: Comprehensive Health Files Suit in S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Singlecare Services LLC. The case
is captioned Comprehensive Health Care Systems, Inc., a Florida
Corporation individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. John Does 1-12 and
Singlecare Services LLC, Case No. 9:16-cv-80877-BB (S.D. Fla., May
31, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Beth Bloom.

SingleCare provides open marketplace of trusted doctors and clear
pricing that enables consumers to make smart decisions about their
healthcare.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5501
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


SODEXO INC: "Riestra" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------
Maria Riestra, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Sodexo, Inc., SDH Services West, LLC, and Does
1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC616945, was removed
from Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The Central District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
03732 to the proceeding.

Sodexo designs, manages, and delivers on-site, benefits and
rewards, and personal and home services in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SPARK ENERGY: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Melville Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark 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 Motion to Dismiss
the lawsuit by John Melville was set on the Court's submission
docket for May 2, 2016.

John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC
is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives
engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC
engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC  breached its contract
with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for himself and the purported class, injunctive
relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or
profits and attorneys' fees.

On March 14, 2016, Spark Energy Gas, LLC and Spark Energy, Inc.
filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff
filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On April 25, 2016,
Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a Reply in
support of their Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss was set
on the Court's submission docket for May 2, 2016.

Spark Energy is an independent retail energy services company that
provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in "Amaya" Case
------------------------------------------------
Spark 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 a confidential
settlement agreement has been reached in the lawsuit by Arturo
Amaya.

Arturo Amaya et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class
action filed on May 22, 2015 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that certain door-to-door sales representatives engaged as
independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC allegedly
engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the California
Civil Code, California Unfair Competition Law, California False
Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
while marketing Spark Energy Gas, LLC's gas services to consumers
in California. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or
declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys' fees.

On September 29, 2015, Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety and a motion to compel
arbitration in the case of one of the named plaintiffs. On April
11, 2016 the Court issued an Order denying without prejudice Spark
Energy Gas, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and denying the
Motion to Dismiss. The Court also reset the date to hear any
Motion for Class Certification that plaintiffs may file in this
matter to August 5, 2016.

On April 15, 2016, the parties attended a court-ordered mediation
during which a confidential resolution of this matter was reached.
The parties are currently in the process of preparing the
corresponding confidential settlement agreement.

"We expensed $0.5 million related to this litigation during the
three months ended March 31, 2016 in our condensed consolidated
statement of operation, $0.5 million of which is in accrued
liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
March 31, 2016," the Company said.

Spark Energy is an independent retail energy services company that
provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
natural gas and electricity.


SPRING MEADOWS: "Nwogwugwu" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Nwogwugwu, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, 141 Providence Lane, PA 19446, the Plaintiff,
v. Spring Meadows at Landsdale, Inc., 1800 Walnut Street,
Landsdale, PA 19446, Case No. 2:16-cv-02663-GJP (E.D. Penn., May
31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(PMWA), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant as a Licensed Practical Nurse. Throughout the course of
his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week, but was not properly compensated for his work.

Spring Meadows is a full service assisted living community located
in Lansdale Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Patrick Murphy Jr., Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC
          Eight Penn Center Suite 1803
          1628 John F Kennedy Blvd
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 375 0961
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


SPROUTS FARMERS: Shareholder Class Action Removed
-------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that a complaint was
filed on March 4, 2016, in the Superior Court for the State of
Arizona on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of
the Company's common stock in the Company's underwritten secondary
public offering which closed on March 10, 2015 (the "March 2015
Offering"). The complaint purports to state claims under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on
an alleged failure by the Company to disclose adequate information
about produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering
documents. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported
class in an unspecified amount, rescission, and an award of
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On March 24, 2016, the
Company removed the action to federal court in the District of
Arizona. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, but
it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome
of, or any potential liability from, the case.

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a Delaware corporation, through its
subsidiaries, operates as a healthy grocery store that offers
fresh, natural and organic food that includes fresh produce, bulk
foods, vitamins and supplements, grocery, meat and seafood,
bakery, deli, dairy, frozen foods, body care and natural household
items catering to consumers' growing interest in eating and living
healthier.


STATE FARM: "Cranfield" Breach of Contract Suit moved to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cranfield individually and on behalf of all other Ohio
residents similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-862285 (Ohio Com.
Pleas, April 26, 2016), has been removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 26, 2016,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01273-CAB.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, as well as all expenses of
this action as a result of breach of contract over excessive
depreciation deduction applied for his actual cash value payment
attributable to the labor component of estimated repair costs.
Cranfield filed for damage claims with State Farm for his house.

State Farm Insurance is an insurance company with headquarters in
One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, IL 61710.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
     DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
     60 South Park Place
     Painesville, OH 44077
     Tel: 440.352.3391
     Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

          - and -

     R. Eric Kennedy, Esq.
     Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
     WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
     1600 Midland Building
     101 West Prospect Avenue W.
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Tel: 216.781.1111
     Email: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com
            dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

          - and -

     Robert C. Tucker, Esq.
     Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
     Benjamin C. Sass‚, Esq.
     Paul L. Janowicz, Esq.
     TUCKER ELLIS LLP
     950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
     Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
     Telephone: 216.592.5000
     Facsimile: 216.592.5009
     E-mail: robert.tucker@tuckerellis.com
             karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com
             benjamin.sasse@tuckerellis.com
             paul.janowicz@tuckerellis.com

          - and -

     James A. DeRoche
     GARSON JOHNSON LLC
     1600 Midland Building
     101 West Prospect Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Tel: 216.696.9330
     Email: jderoche@garson.com


SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT: "Pinzon" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Basilio Juarez Pinzon and Claudio Patricio Flores, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Summit Development Corp. d/b/a Summit Waterproofing & Restoration
CO.; Kostas Fakiris; and any other related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 604025/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 31, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, pursuant to New
York Labor Law (Labor Law) and New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations (NYCRR).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
policy and practice of requiring their employees to regularly work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime
compensation as required by applicable state law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Telexfree Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. 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 motion
to dismiss the TelexFree Litigation remains pending.

On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re:
TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH,
United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with
numerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit.
An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which
consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted. The
claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by
Plaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus-related
entities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending.

TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC, an
independent sales organization/member service provider sponsored
by Synovus Bank. The purported class action lawsuit generally
alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing
scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services
and that the various defendants, including Synovus Bank, provided
financial services to TelexFree that allowed TelexFree to conduct
its business operations.

Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 1,
2015, which remains pending before the court.

Synovus Bank believes it has substantial defenses related to these
purported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claims
asserted.


TACOS AL CARBON: Violated FLSA, "Vigil" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Jose Vigil, individually and as class representative of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Tacos Al Carbon
Of Greenacres, Inc., a Florida for Profit Corporation; and Victor
H. Gonzalez, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80814-
KAM (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2016), seeks to remedy violations of the
wage-and-hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
that have deprived Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees
proper overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' refusal to pay
Plaintiff and the Class Members any overtime premium for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per work week on and off the clock was and
is repeated, willful and intentional.

Tacos is doing business in Palm Beach County Florida as a seller
of food and groceries including the restaurant located at
Greenacres, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher C. Copeland, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND, P.A.
          824 W. Indiantown Road
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 691 9048
          Facsimile: (866) 259 0719
          E-mail: Chris@CopelandPA.com
                  Carla@CopelandPA.com


TANGOE INC: "Moleski" Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Sarah Moleski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr. and
Gary R. Martino, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02957-KM-JBC,
(D.N.J. May 24, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages for
violation of the federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Tangoe failed to disclose that
Defendants were manipulating the Company financial statements and
lacked any internal controls rendering their publically made
statements materially false and/or misleading. Moleski acquired
Tangoe securities at artificially inflated prices and lost
substantially upon the revelation of the alleged corrective
disclosures.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Tel: (973) 313-1887
      Fax: (973) 833-0399
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


TARGET CORP: "Rizzo" Sues over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Salvatore Rizzo, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, Gregg W.
Steinhafel and John J. Mulligan, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-
01485-WMW-TNL, (D. Minn., May 24, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation currently operating
general merchandise discount stores throughout the U.S.
Steinhafel and Mulligan served as CEO and CFO of Target
respectively.

Plaintiffs allege that Target failed to disclose details regarding
its entry into the Canadian market when Target agreed to purchase
leasehold interests in as many as 220 retail sites from Zellers,
Inc. Canadian operations encountered problems and began to
underperform investor expectations. Target revealed the Company
would discontinue its Canadian operations and that Target Canada
Co. had filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada. In response to
this news, Target stock declined $1.63 per share, or 2.1 percent.

Plaintiff purchased the publicly-traded common stock of Target at
artificially inflated prices and lost substantially upon the
revelation of the disclosures.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

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

           - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 697-6484
      Fax: (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


TC PIPELINES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
TC PipeLines, LP 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 decision on the
motion to dismiss the case, Employees Retirement System of the
City of St. Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al., is expected in
late second quarter of 2016 or early third quarter 2016.

On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership
filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (Chancery Court) against the General Partner,
TransCanada American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and
the Partnership as a nominal defendant.   The complaint alleges
direct and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breach of
contract, and tortious interference in connection with the 2015
GTN Acquisition, including the issuance by the Partnership of $95
million in Class B Units and amendments to the Partnership
Agreement to provide for the issuance of the Class B Units.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of
Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries,
disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner,
TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the
Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to
the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees.
To the extent the claims are derivative, the Partnership would be
the beneficiary of any monetary award.  The Partnership does not
expect legal fees or the impact of the decision on plaintiffs'
other requests to be material.

In April 2016, the Chancery Court held a hearing on the
Partnership and other defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint.  A decision on the motion is expected in
late second quarter of 2016 or early third quarter 2016.


TC PIPELINES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
TC PipeLines, LP 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 decision on the
motion to dismiss the case, Employees Retirement System of the
City of St. Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al., is expected in
late second quarter of 2016 or early third quarter 2016.

On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership
filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (Chancery Court) against the General Partner,
TransCanada American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and
the Partnership as a nominal defendant.   The complaint alleges
direct and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breach of
contract, and tortious interference in connection with the 2015
GTN Acquisition, including the issuance by the Partnership of $95
million in Class B Units and amendments to the Partnership
Agreement to provide for the issuance of the Class B Units.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of
Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries,
disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner,
TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the
Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to
the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees.
To the extent the claims are derivative, the Partnership would be
the beneficiary of any monetary award.  The Partnership does not
expect legal fees or the impact of the decision on plaintiffs'
other requests to be material.

In April 2016, the Chancery Court held a hearing on the
Partnership and other defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint.  A decision on the motion is expected in
late second quarter of 2016 or early third quarter 2016.


TD AMERITRADE: Appeal Filed in "Verdieck" Action
------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation 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 plaintiff
in the "Verdieck" action related to Order Routing has filed a
notice of appeal.

Five putative class action complaints have been filed regarding TD
Ameritrade's routing of client orders. The cases are pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et
al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc.; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael
Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald
Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.

The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the
defendants failed to provide clients with "best execution" and
routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order
flow. The complaints in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the
defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the
venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients
did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders.

The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b)
and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of
Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust
enrichment and declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various
kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief.

The Company moved to dismiss each of the five putative class
action complaints. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered
Findings and Recommendations with respect to each of the five
actions, recommending that the District Judge dismiss each of the
five lawsuits.

On March 23, 2016, the District Judge entered an order dismissing
all of the state law claims in the five actions, denying the
motion to dismiss the federal securities claims in the Klein case,
and permitting the plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend
their complaints to assert a federal securities claim. None of the
plaintiffs in the other four actions filed an amended complaint.
The plaintiff in the Verdieck case filed a notice of appeal.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if
any, that may result.


TD AMERITRADE: Accord in Reserve Yield Litigation Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation 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
granted final approval to the settlement in the Reserve Yield Plus
Fund Litigation.

During September 2008, The Reserve, an independent mutual fund
company, announced that the net asset value of the Reserve Yield
Plus Fund declined below $1.00 per share. The Yield Plus Fund was
not a money market mutual fund, but its stated objective was to
maintain a net asset value of $1.00 per share. TD Ameritrade,
Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund (now
known as "Yield Plus Fund - In Liquidation"), which is being
liquidated.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund.

On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor, certain of its
affiliates and the Company and certain of its directors, officers
and shareholders as alleged control persons. The complaint alleges
claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other
claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements
and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund
prospectuses and in other statements regarding the fund.

On March 19, 2015, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with
Reserve Management Company, Inc. and related defendants to settle
the claims against them, subject to court approval.

On March 26, 2015, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the claims against the Company
and its directors, officers and shareholders named as defendants,
subject to definitive written terms that required court approval.
Under the agreement, the Company agreed to make a cash
contribution of $3.75 million toward a class settlement fund.

On November 23, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and notices to class members. The Company
paid its $3.75 million contribution to the class settlement fund
on December 4, 2015. Notices to class members were mailed by the
claims administrator on December 8, 2015.

On March 10, 2016, the court entered an order and final judgment
granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing all
claims against the defendants.


TEMPUR SEALY: Still Defends "Todd" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, 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
continues to defend the case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary
Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly
known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North
America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The
Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously.

The Court was scheduled to consider class certification motions in
the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the plaintiffs filed a Motion
to Amend the Complaint, at which time the Company filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing on the Motion to
Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and the Court denied in part and
granted in part the Company's Motion to Dismiss, allowing certain
claims to proceed.

The outcome of this case remains uncertain. As a result, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether
the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.

Tempur Sealy develops, manufactures, markets and distributes
bedding products.


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Entered Into Binding Term Sheet
------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, 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 29, 2016, that the Company on March
1, 2016, entered into a binding Term Sheet to resolve alleged
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act asserted on
behalf of a purported class of employees.  Once the settlement
agreement is finalized, it will be subject to court approval.

The Company said, "To cover the estimated costs of the settlement,
including estimated payments to any opt-in members and class
attorneys, as well as related settlement administration costs, we
recorded a charge of $5.5 million ($3.4 million after-tax) during
the 13 weeks ended March 29, 2016.  The charge is recorded in
general and administrative expenses in our unaudited condensed
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income.  The
actual amount of any settlement payment could vary from our
estimate and will be subject to many factors including approval by
the court, the claims process, and other matters typically
associated with the settlement of class action litigation."

Texas Roadhouse, Inc. is a growing restaurant company operating
predominately in the casual dining segment.


THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Faces "Adams" Suit Over ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Adams, Individually, Plaintiff, v. Tharaldson
Hospitality Development LLC A Foreign Limited Liability Company
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01150-JTM-KGG (D. Kan., May 26, 2016),
seeks injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Adams suffers from cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair.

Defendant owns or operates the Comfort Inn located at 9525 E
Corporate Hills, Wichita, Kansas. Plaintiff alleges that their
facilities are not accessible by persons with wheelchairs.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Pete M. Monismith, Esq.
     3945 Forbes Ave., #175
     Pittsburgh, PA 15213
     Tel: 724-610-1881
     Fax: 412-258-1309
     Email: pete@monismithlaw.com


TIME INC: Rose Coulter-Owens Filed Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Time 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 Rose Coulter-Owens has filed a notice
with the Circuit Court appealing the District Court's dismissal of
plaintiff's claims.

On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the
"Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of
Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the
ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or
lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to
third parties certain information about customers' purchase, lease
or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc.
violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers
to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive
relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class
member or actual damages.

On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint on
the grounds that it failed to state claims for relief and because
the named plaintiff lacked standing because she suffered no injury
from the alleged conduct. On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in
part, and denied, in part, Time Inc.'s motion, dismissing the
breach of contract claim but allowing the VRPA and unjust
enrichment claims to proceed. On November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter-
Owens replaced Susan Fox as the named plaintiff.

On March 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify
a class consisting of all Michigan residents who between March 31,
2009 and November 15, 2013 purchased a subscription to TIME,
Fortune or Real Simple magazines through any website other than
Time.com, Fortune.com and RealSimple.com. On July 27, 2015, the
court granted plaintiff's motion to certify the class, which we
estimate to comprise approximately 40,000 consumers. On August 31,
2015, Time Inc. and the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and
on October 1, 2015 both parties filed briefs in opposition to
their adversaries' motions.

On February 16, 2016, the court granted Time Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the case. On March 16, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the
District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims.


TIME INC: To Defend Against "Perlin" Case
-----------------------------------------
Time 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 on February 19, 2016, the same law firm
representing Coulter-Owens filed another class action, entitled
Perlin v. Time Inc., in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of the VRPA as
well as a claim for unjust enrichment. This lawsuit was filed on
behalf of Michigan residents who purchased subscriptions directly
from Time Inc.

"We intend to vigorously defend against or prosecute the matters,"
the Company said.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. 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. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of
federal securities claims.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal
securities class action was filed against us in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  In the action, a
former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint
proxy statement related to our shareholder meeting in connection
with the merger with the acquired company violated various
securities laws and that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees."

"On March 11, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District
of New York dismissed the claims as time-barred.  Plaintiffs
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the
"Second Circuit"), but on March 17, 2016, the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal.  The time in which the plaintiffs may seek
review by the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet expired."


TRUE RELIGION: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against True Religion Apparel, Inc. The
case is captioned Andres Gomez, on his own behalf and on behalf of
other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. True
Religion Apparel, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21940-CMA
(S.D. Fla., May 27, 2016).

True Religion designs, markets, sells, and distributes apparel
under the True Religion Brand Jeans name worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRUEACCORD CORP: Certification of Class Sought in "Lisiecki" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lisiecki moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint in the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE LISIECKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
TRUEACCORD CORP., and CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00652-JPS (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TUMI HOLDINGS: Class Action Filed Over Samsonite Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Tumi Holdings, Inc. on March 3, 2016, entered into a merger
agreement with Samsonite International S.A. ("Samsonite") and PTL
Acquisition Inc., pursuant to which Samsonite will acquire Tumi.

Tumi 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 on March 15, 2016, a putative stockholder
class action challenging the merger was filed in New Jersey
Superior Court and was captioned Sun v. Tumi Holdings, Inc., et
al., No. C-32-16 (N.J. Super.) (the "Sun State Court Action").
The Sun State Court Action alleged that the members of Tumi's
board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
entering into the merger agreement with Samsonite at an inadequate
price, failing to engage in an auction process, and failing to
disclose all material information to Tumi's stockholders.  The Sun
State Court Action also alleged that Tumi and Samsonite aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On April 14,
2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Sun State Court Action.

On April 19, 2016, the same plaintiff who filed the Sun State
Court Action, filed an action in the District of New Jersey,
captioned Sun v. Tumi Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-02184-
JMV-JBC (D. NJ.) (the "Sun Federal Court Action").  The Sun
Federal Court Action makes only disclosure claims, alleging an
individual claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended to date ("1934 Act") against Tumi
and the members of its board, as well as an individual claim for
violation of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against Samsonite and
the members of Tumi's board.  Tumi and the board believes these
claims are wholly without merit.

Tumi Holdings, Inc. is a designer, producer and marketer of a
comprehensive line of travel and business products and accessories
in multiple categories.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Continues to Defend Wilder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, 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
continues to defend the Wilder Litigation.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were
issued regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The
News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company,
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks
compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs.
On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court
issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint
shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things,
added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK &
Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to
include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court
on March 31, 2014. On April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second
amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the
allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands
the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011.

Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint, and on September 30, 2015, the court granted
defendants' motions in their entirety and dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims. On October 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the court's memorandum, opinion and order,
which defendants have opposed.

The Company's management believes the claims in the Wilder
Litigation are entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously
defend this action.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Singh" Suit Moved to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------
Jaswinder Singh, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case no. MON-
L-16-01464, was removed from Superior Court of New Jersey Monmouth
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Trenton). The New Jersey District assigned
Case No. 3:16-cv-03044-FLW-DEA to the proceeding. The assigned
Judge is Hon. Freda L. Wolfson.

Uber Technologies provides e-commerce services for car hire. The
company offers a website that allows users to request a car for
hire from any mobile device text message.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685 7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685 7417
          E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul Calvin Lantis, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Three Parkway, Suite 1400
          1601 Cherry Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402 3073
          Facsimile: (267) 276 7776
          E-mail: plantis@littler.com


UNILIFE CORP: "Bulcock" Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill Bulcock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Unilife Corporation, Alan Shortall, John
Ryan, R. Richard Wieland II, Dennis P. Pyers, David C. Hastings,
and Jim Bosnjak, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03976, (S.D.N.Y.,
May 26, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred including counsel and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Unilife is a designer, manufacturer and supplier of injectable
drug delivery systems. Defendants allegedly violated the Company
policies and procedures regarding adequate internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting resulting in its inability to
file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2016 by the prescribed filing deadline. The Defendants'
financial statements, as well as business, operations and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis, says the complaint.

Bulcock purchased Unilife common stock and lost substantially
after corrective disclosures.

Alan Shortall, John Ryan, R. Richard Wieland II, Dennis P. Pyers,
David C. Hastings, and Jim Bosnjak served in the company board.

Defendant is represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

          - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


VALSPAR CORP: Sued Over Merger Breaches with Sherwin-Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mitsopoulos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Valspar Corporation,
Jack J. Allen, John M. Ballbach, John S. Bode, William M. Cook,
Jeffrey H. Curler, Shane D. Fleming, Ian R. Friendly, Janel S.
Haugarth, Gary E. Hendrickson, Mae C. Jemison, and David D.
Lumley, the Defendants, Case No. 12373 (Del. Chancery Ct., May 24,
2016), seeks to enjoin a proposed merger agreement unless and/or
until Defendants cure their breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or
recover damages resulting from Defendants' violations of their
fiduciary duties.

On March 21, 2016, the Company announced that it had entered into
a definitive agreement (Merger Agreement) on March 19, 2016 by
which Sherwin-Williams, through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Viking Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub), will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Valspar (Proposed Transaction). Each share
of Valspar common stock will be cancelled and converted into the
right to receive $113.00 in cash. However, if Sherwin-Williams is
required to divest or otherwise dispose of assets representing
value in excess of $650 million in order to obtain necessary
antitrust approvals, then each share of Valspar common stock will
be converted into the right to receive only $105.00 in cash. The
Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $11.3 billion.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Valspar's stockholders on April 18, 2016, when
they caused the Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (Proxy)
to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). Intended to solicit stockholder approval of the Proposed
Transaction, the Proxy fails to disclose material financial
projections prepared by Valspar management and used in the
financial analyses of the Proposed Transaction performed by
Valspar's advisors, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and
Goldman Sachs & Co., says the complaint.

Valspar provides coatings and coating intermediates to a wide
variety of customers. Since 1806, Valspar has been dedicated to
bringing customers the latest innovations, the finest quality, and
the best customer service in the coatings industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290


VEREIT INC: Oral Argument Held in May in Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. 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 motions to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit
have been fully briefed and the Court scheduled oral argument on
May 12, 2016.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and current and former directors,
among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in
ten putative securities class action complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "SDNY Actions"). The Court subsequently consolidated the SDNY
Actions under the caption In re American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY
Consolidated Securities Class Action").

Following motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, which were
granted in part and denied in part, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015, which
asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Certain defendants, including the Company filed
motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint (or
portions thereof) on February 12, 2016. The motions to dismiss are
fully briefed and the Court has scheduled oral argument on May 12,
2016.

In addition, on November 25, 2014, the Company and certain of its
former officers and current and former directors were named as
defendants in a putative securities class action complaint filed
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned
Wunsch v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No.
03-C-14-012816 (the "Wunsch Action"). On December 23, 2014, the
Company removed the action to the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland and on April 15, 2015, the Maryland court
transferred the Wunsch Action to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. On December 15, 2015, the
Wunsch Action was consolidated with the SDNY Consolidated
Securities Class Action.


VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Esposito" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. 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 Company and certain of its former officers and directors
(among other individuals and entities) were named on October 28,
2015, as defendants in a putative securities class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York: IRA FBO John Esposito v. American
Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-08508 (the
"Esposito Action"). The Esposito Action seeks money damages and
asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the purchase or sale of the
Company's securities. The Company is not yet required to respond
to the complaint in the Esposito Action.


VEREIT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Witchko" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. 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 Company and certain of its former officers and current
and former directors were named on July 31, 2015, as defendants in
a shareholder derivative action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Witchko v. Schorsch, et al., No. 15-cv-06043 (AKH) (the "Witchko
Action"). The Witchko Action asserts claims under Section 14 of
the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements made in the Company's proxy statements and the
incorporation by reference of allegedly false and misleading
financial statements. The Witchko Action also seeks money damages
and other relief on behalf of the Company, for, among other
things, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and
unjust enrichment. On October 15, 2015, the Company and other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the Witchko Action due to
plaintiff's failure to plead facts, as required under Maryland
law, demonstrating that the Board's decision to refuse plaintiff's
pre-suit demand was wrongful and not a protected business
judgment.


VEREIT INC: Appeal in "Poling" Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. 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 appeal in the Poling class action remains pending.

Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease
in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease
stockholders, the following of which remain pending:

On June 25, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the
Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of
directors, among others, captioned Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., et
al., No. 24-C-13-004176 (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the merger agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors
because the transaction purportedly did not provide for full and
fair value for the CapLease shareholders and was not the result of
a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement allegedly
contained coercive deal protection measures and the merger was
purportedly approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement.

In August 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action filed a motion for a
stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the court that the
plaintiff had agreed to join and participate in the prosecution of
other actions concerning the CapLease transaction then pending in
a New York court (which were subsequently dismissed). The stay was
granted by the Baltimore Court and the parties have engaged in no
subsequent activity in the Tarver Action.

In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP,
CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among
others, captioned Poling v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-
006178 (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleged that the
merger agreement breached the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series
B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms
of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
("Series C") and was in violation of the Series B Articles
Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The
complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease
board of directors, and that the Company, the OP and Safari
Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted CapLease and the CapLease
directors' alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary
duty.

In December 2013, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Poling Action, which was granted by the court in May 2015.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 4, 2015. The appeal is
pending.


VEREIT INC: Carter and Schindler Actions Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. 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 Carter and the Schindler class action lawsuits have been
dismissed.

Two actions filed in March and April 2013 in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, assert shareholder
class action claims under the Securities Act of 1933, along with
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate
waste, and unjust enrichment, among others, relating to the merger
between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings
Corporation, pursuant to which Cole became a self-managed REIT;
Schindler v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00712 (the
"Schindler Action"); and Carter v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al.,
13-cv-00629 (the "Carter Action"). Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss both complaints in January 2014. Both of those lawsuits
were stayed by the Court pursuant to a joint request made by all
parties pending final approval of a consolidated action in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, which case was finally
resolved on appeal on February 1, 2016. The Carter Action was
subsequently dismissed voluntarily by Plaintiffs on March 30, 2016
and the Schindler Action was dismissed with prejudice by the court
on April 14, 2016.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Recovered $4MM of Settlement in Q1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited 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, that
the Company has recovered a total of $19 million of the class
action settlement amount, of which $4 million was recovered in the
first quarter of 2016.

The Company said, "On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to
settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v.
Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK
(S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and
court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in March
2012, and alleged that we and certain current and former officers
of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection
with the restatements of the Company's historical financial
statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012."

"On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a final judgment and an order
approving the settlement of the shareholder securities class
action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et
al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.).  Pursuant to the
settlement, we were required to pay $120 million in 2015, which
was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission
of liability or fault by any party in connection with the
settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance
carriers and have recovered a total of $19 million of the
settlement amount, of which $4 million was recovered in the first
quarter of 2016.

Weatherford's principal business is to provide equipment and
services to the oil and natural gas exploration and production
industry, both on land and offshore.


WOODHULL TOWERS: "Polanco" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosanna Polanco, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Woodhull Towers
Cafe Corporation and George Prepis, individually, and Manoli
Katsaros, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02663,
(E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunctions, damages for all unpaid wages, liquidated damages and
any other statutory penalties, all back pay, front pay, general
and special damages for lost compensation and employee benefits,
punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees
and other costs and an award of a service payment, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest and other and further relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a waitress. Woodhull is a
corporation operating a restaurant located at 760 Broadway,
Brooklyn, New York, 11206. Prepis is the owner and Chief
Executive Officer while Katsaros is the General Manager.

Defendant is represented by:

      Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 679-5000


WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Embree" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
Tommy J. Embree, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff. v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, Wyndham
Vacation Resorts, Inc., Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc.,
Fairshare Vacation Owners Association, RCI LLC, Terri Dost, Peter
Hernandez, and Rob Hebeler, the Defendants, Case no. 5:16-cv-
05015, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The Middle District Court
assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00928-PGB-GJK to the proceeding.
The assigned Judge is Hon. Paul G. Byron.

Wyndham Worldwide is the holding company for Wyndham Hotels &
Resorts, RCI and other lodging brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradford D. Barron, Esq.
          GIBBON BARRON BARRON
          20 East 5th Street, Suite 1000
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 745 0687
          Facsimile: (918) 745 0821

               - and -

          Richard Franklin Hatfield, Esq.
          RICHARD F. HATFIELD P.A.
          401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 502
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374 9010
          Facsimile: (501) 374 8510

               - and -

          Robert G. Methvin Jr., Esq.
          MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, PA
          2201 Arlington Ave S
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939 0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939 0399
          E-mail: Rgm@mmlaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chris S. Coutroulis, Esq.
          David Matthew Allen, Esq.
          David E. Cannella, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
          4221 W Boy Scout Blvd Ste 1000
          PO Box 3239
          Tampa, FL 33601-3239
          Telephone: (813) 223 7000
          Facsimile: (813) 229 4133
          E-mail: ccoutroulis@cfjblaw.com
                  mallen@cfjblaw.com
                  dcannella@carltonfields.com

               - and -

          John Keeling Baker
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS,
          SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, PLLC
          425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3525
          Telephone: (501) 688 8850
          Facsimile: (501) 918 7850


YSL CARE: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Edith Hernandez and Rene Gomez, individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YSL Care, Inc.,
d/b/a Columbus Manor Residential Care, and Afzal Lokhandwala,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05558 (N.D. Ill., May
24, 2016), seeks all unpaid wages due, statutory damages,
reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

YSL Care, Inc. is a community-based residential treatment facility
for mental illness located at 5107-21 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago,
Illinois, where Gomez worked as a cook and Hernandez worked as a
dishwasher. Both claim that they were denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raisa Alicea, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Office: 312-800-1017
     Email: ralicea@yourclg.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *