CAR_Public/160616.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 120




                            Headlines


24 HOUR: Faces "Shah" Suit in Cal. Over Lifetime Renewal Rates
ABBVIE INC: Sidney Hillman Suit Pending
ABBVIE INC: Suits by Medical Mutual and Allied Services Pending
ABBVIE INC: 725 Depakote Product Claims Pending
ABBVIE INC: N.D. Ill. Court Tossed Shire Securities Action

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Date Yet in Physicians Case
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Reached Settlement with Stockholders
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Action
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Salepeople's Wage Class Action Can Proceed
AT&T CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Rate Plan Advertisements

AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: 3 Securities Suits Pending in N.D. Cal.
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Defending Class Suit in San Mateo Court
BANK OF THE OZARKS: To Seek Supreme Court Review of Ruling
BECTON DICKINSON: Opposed Plaintiffs' Bid to File Amended Suit
BEST BUY: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Refresh Rates

BLUE STAR FARMS: Migrant Legal Aid Files Class Action
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Contreras" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Appointed
CAREFIRST INC: Court Tosses 2015 Data Breach Class Action
CIRCLE GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Solis" Suit Says

CLARK-FLOYD LANDFILL: Residents Mull Class Action Over Odors
COMENITY CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Doherty" Suit Says
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Remains Pending
CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Update in Canadian Class Action
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Case Pending

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Urges 9th Cir. to Decertify Animators' Suit
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Ex-Football Player Files Concussion Class Action
ENDOCYTE INC: Class Action Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal Filed in Regency Merger Litigation
ENERGY TRANSFER: Updates on WMB Merger Litigation

ENERGY TRANSFER: Updates on Unitholder Litigation
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Filed in "Kristensen" Suit
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Updates on 4 Class Actions
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
FIREEYE INC: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Denied

FIREEYE INC: Bid to Dismiss N.D. Cal. Suit Pending
FITBIT INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Sleep Tracking Suit
FITBIT INC: Consolidated Suit Filed Over Heart Rate Monitoring
FITBIT INC: Amended Complaint in Securities Case Due July 1
FITBIT INC: To Defend Against State Securities Class Action

FORD MODELS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
FTD COMPANIES: Settlement Awaits Final Approval
GANNETT: Appellate Court Won't Reconsider Ruling in Privacy Case
GERON CORPORATION: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
GOPRO INC: Amended Complaints Due to be Filed by June 21

GOPRO INC: Class Action Filed Related to IPO
HANOVER INSURANCE: Durand Class Action Underway
HF FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Stockholder Clas Suit
HIGHER ONE: Plaintiffs Oppose Case Dismissal Bid
HIGHER ONE: Labor Case Parties Proceed to Private Mediation

HORIZON REALTY: Refunds Cleaning Fee to Chase Village Tenants
HUGO BOSS: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: 4 Merger Suits Consolidated
HYUNDAI OF MATTESON: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
IMPRIVATA INC: Faces "Coyer" Class Action

INKAY CORP: Faces "Segura" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: S.D.N.Y. Securities Litigation Underway
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Oral Arguments Heard in Appeal
IXIA: Insurer Funded $3.5 Million into Escrow Account
JIMMY JOHN'S: Sued Over Highly Restrictive Non-Compete Agreements

JUST FOR MEN: Faces Class Action Over Hair Dye Product Risks
KIA MOTORS: Faces "Wallis" Suit Over Defective GDI Engines
LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Dismiss Suit v. ARCP et al Pending
LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Remand Suit v. Miller Energy Pending
LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Dismiss Suit v. Plains Pending

LADENBURG THALMANN: To Dismiss Against Bankruptcy Class Action
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Consolidated Action in Preliminary Stage
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Scheduling Order Entered in "Howard" Suit
LORILLARD TOBACCO: "DeRoo" Sues Over Cancer Due to Cigarettes
LORILLARD TOBACCO: "Lamattina" Sues Over Cancer Due to Cigarettes

MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Renewed Motion to Approve Deal Filed
MARCHEX INC: "Porter" Lawsuit Dismissed
MATSU INC: Faces "Pu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MDL 2084: AndroGel Suits v. AbbVie et al. in Discovery
MDL 2460: Niaspan Suits v. AbbVie Remain Pending

MDL 2545: 3,400 Testosterone Product Claims vs. AbbVie Pending
MDL 2566: Discovery in TelexFree Litigation Stayed
MEDPARTNERS: AIG, CVS Settles Class Action for $310 Million
METLIFE INC: MLIC's Motion to Dismiss "Martin" Case Granted
METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Newman" Action

MKS INSTRUMENTS: Pincon and Chung Actions Consolidated
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Transfer and Dismiss Pending
MULTI-FINELINE: Class Suit Over DSBJ Merger in Early Stage
MURRAY GOULBURN: Suit Mulled Over Farmgate Milk Price Clawback
NAVY FEDERAL: Judge Denies Approval of Class Action Settlement

NEST: Sued for Misleading Buyers on Thermostat Energy Savings
NEW YORK: Convictions Made Amid Rikers Island Jail Class Action
PENN WEST: June 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PERFECT L G: "Savala" Suit in Va. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PRICELINE GROUP: "Laquer" Suit Transferred to Connecticut

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Plaintiff Allowed to File 2nd Amended Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Muir" Plaintiff Seeks Consolidation
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Parties in Sterling Heights Case Reach Deal
RITE AID: Seeks Dismissal of New York TCPA Class Action
SABOR BROOKLYN: Faces "Gaspar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Judge to Hear PFOA Contamination Case
SANDEEP V: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Briefing Schedule for Appeal Not Yet Set
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Opposed Kader Bid to File Amended Complaint
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Home Health Aides Lose Class Action Bid

SEUNG SUN: Faces "Raudales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SPECIAL TOUCH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Shamsiev" Suit Says
SPOKEO INC: Wins Data Accuracy Class Action Battle
STEEL DYNAMICS: Additional Discovery Ongoing
TPS PARKING: Faces "Freeman" Suit Over Disability Discrimination

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Watchdog Calls for Audit of Fla. AG's Actions
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Issues Statement on Judge's Rulings
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Probes Tactics in Antitrust Case
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: 9th Cir. Class Action Appeal Pending
UNIRUSH LLC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 12

UNIT CORPORATION: Panola ISD Action Still Pending in Oklahoma
UNITED STATES: IRS Unveils Expanded List of Probed Nonprofits
UNITED STATES: Settlement Payouts Underway in Keepseagle Case
VISIONWORKS INC: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fleck" Suit in D.N.J.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: 9th Circuit Reversed Decision in Merkin Case
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Online Program Scam, Ex-Student Claims
WARNER MUSIC: New Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Under Discussion
WHITE OAK: Faces "Yi" Class Suit in District Maryland

XTO ENERGY: Roderick & Chieftain Royalty Cases Proceeding


                            *********


24 HOUR: Faces "Shah" Suit in Cal. Over Lifetime Renewal Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dipti Shah, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., Case No. RG16818048 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 2, 2016), alleges that the Defendant engaged in unfair
and deceptive practices, specifically by knowingly and
intentionally promising and advertising to customers that prepaid
memberships are sold with accompanying Lifetime Renewal Rates when
the Defendant knows it does not and has no intention to honor
these promises and concealing from customers -- that it does not
intend to honor the fixed, annual Lifetime Renewal Rate.

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. owns and operates a fitness company
located at 1264 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 500, San Ramon, California
94583.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq.
      Martin D. Quinones, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAV AREEI LLP
      483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 254-6808
      E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com
              mquinones@tzlegal.com


ABBVIE INC: Sidney Hillman Suit Pending
---------------------------------------
AbbVie, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in August 2013, a
putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman Health Center of
Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against AbbVie
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois by three healthcare benefit providers alleging violations
of Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
statutes and state deceptive business practice and unjust
enrichment laws in connection with reimbursements for certain uses
of Depakote from 1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages
and/or equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

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

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


ABBVIE INC: Suits by Medical Mutual and Allied Services Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that:

     -- In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical
Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs),
including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance
companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payors
who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel. The claims asserted include
violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud and
deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

     -- A similar lawsuit, Allied Services Division Welfare Fund
v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in the same court in October
2015 on behalf of the same putative class members and a putative
class of consumers.

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

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


ABBVIE INC: 725 Depakote Product Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------
AbbVie, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that product liability
cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie
did not adequately warn about risk of certain injuries, primarily
various birth defects, arising from use of Depakote. Over ninety
percent of the approximately 725 claims are pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and
the rest are pending in various other federal and state courts.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


ABBVIE INC: N.D. Ill. Court Tossed Shire Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court dismissed a
class action on behalf of Shire plc securities.

In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc
(Shire) securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against
AbbVie and its chief executive officer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that
the defendants made and/or are responsible for material
misstatements in violation of federal securities laws in
connection with AbbVie's proposed transaction with Shire. In March
2016, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, giving
plaintiffs until May 2, 2016 to attempt to amend their complaint.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Date Yet in Physicians Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no trial date
has been scheduled in the lawsuit by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.

The Company said, "On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we
or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief."

"Allscripts answered the complaint denying all material
allegations and asserting a number of affirmative defenses, as
well as counterclaims for breach of a license agreement.  After
plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration of the counterclaims was
granted, Allscripts made a demand in arbitration where the
counterclaims remain pending.  Discovery in the proposed class
action has now concluded.

"On March 31, 2016, plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification. Our opposition to the motion [was] due May 16,
2016, and plaintiff's reply [was] to be filed on May 31, 2016.  No
trial date has been scheduled."

Physicians Healthsource is represented by Ross M. Good --
rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Ryan M Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- George Lang -- glang@andersonwanca.com
-- Brian John Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson &
Wanca; Phillip A Bock -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- Phillip James
Bullimore -- pjb@bockhatchllc.com -- Tod Allen Lewis --
tod@bockhatchllc.com -- James Michael Smith --
jim@bockhatchllc.com -- Julia Lynn Titolo --
julia@bockhatchllc.com -- at Bock and Hatch LLC; and Christopher
Phillip Taylor Tourek -- cpttourek@gmail.com -- at Shea and
Larocque.

Allscripts et al. are represented by David S. Almeida --
dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com -- and David Mitchell Poell --
DPoell@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin LLP.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Reached Settlement with Stockholders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
has reached a settlement with stockholders who had excluded
themselves from the class settlement, and this matter is now
resolved.

The Company said, "On May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against us; Glen Tullman, our former Chief Executive Officer; and
William Davis, our former Chief Financial Officer, by the Bristol
County Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a purported
class consisting of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between November 18, 2010 and April 26, 2012.  In April 2015, the
Court granted a motion for preliminary approval of the class
settlement in this lawsuit and on July 21, 2015, the Court
approved the settlement and entered a final judgment binding on
members of the class, minus stockholders who excluded themselves
from the settlement, including certain entities affiliated with
HealthCor Management, L.P. On March 29, 2016, we reached a
settlement with the stockholders who had excluded themselves from
the class settlement, and this matter is now resolved."


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and
the other defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint.

On May 8, 2015 and May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the
Company brought two putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court in the Central District of California,
Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03474-TJH and Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-03640-TJH (the "Securities Class Actions"), alleging
that Ampio and certain of its current and former officers violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting
information regarding the STEP study. The cases were consolidated,
and on February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Sections 11 and 15 under the Securities Act of
1933 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of common stock
from January 13, 2014 through August 21, 2014, including
purchasers in the Company's offering on February 28, 2014. On
April 8, 2016, Ampio and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Ampio is a biopharmaceutical company focused primarily on
developing compounds that decrease inflammation by (i) inhibiting
specific pro-inflammatory compounds by affecting specific pathways
at the protein expression and at the transcription level; (ii)
activating specific phosphatase or depleting available phosphate
needed for the inflammation process; and (iii) decreasing vascular
permeability.


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Salepeople's Wage Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that hundreds of
commissioned salespeople can sue Ashley Furniture Industries and
its subsidiary, Stoneledge Furniture, as a class for allegedly
violating California minimum wage laws, a federal appeals court
ruled on June 8.

The furniture companies' attorneys at Littler Mendelson had argued
that class certification was improper in light of two landmark
U.S. Supreme Court rulings: Dukes v. Walmart in 2011, and Comcast
v. Behrend in 2013. But, a unanimous panel three-judge panel of
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying the high
court's April decision in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo supported
certification.


AT&T CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Rate Plan Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Zatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT&T Corporation and AT&T Mobility, LLC, Case No.
3:16-cv-01323-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal., June 2, 2016), arises out of the
Defendant's false and misleading written point of sale marketing
and advertising regarding available rate plans at $0.10 per
minute.

The Defendants operate a company that provides wireless voice and
data service throughout the United States, including the State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      One America Plaza
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sward@barrack.com
              sbasser@barrack.com


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: 3 Securities Suits Pending in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend 3 securities class action lawsuits in
California.

In July 2015, three putative securities class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, each on behalf of a purported class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired its publicly traded
securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits
assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act) and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act)
and allege that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omitted allegedly material information
related to, among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for
AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company believes that the claims in the asserted actions are
without merit and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. The
Company expects to incur costs associated with defending the
actions. While the Company has various insurance policies related
to the risks associated with its business, including directors'
and officers' liability insurance policies, there is no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense of the actions,
that its insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured
retention, will be sufficient, or that its insurance carriers will
cover all claims or litigation costs. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably predict
at this time the timing or outcomes of these matters or estimate
the amount of losses, or range of losses, if any, or their effect,
if any, on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. is a gene therapy company
committed to discovering and developing novel medicines that can
offer potentially life-changing therapeutic benefit to patients
suffering from chronic or debilitating disease.


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Defending Class Suit in San Mateo Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in December 2015,
a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us,
our board of directors, underwriters of our January 13, 2015,
follow-on public stock offering, and two of our institutional
stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo. The complaint alleges that, in connection
with our follow-on stock offering, the defendants violated the
Securities Act by allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements and by allegedly omitting material information related
to the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of
AVA-101. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and
rescissory damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company believes that the claims in the asserted actions are
without merit and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. The
Company expects to incur costs associated with defending the
actions. While the Company has various insurance policies related
to the risks associated with its business, including directors'
and officers' liability insurance policies, there is no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense of the actions,
that its insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured
retention, will be sufficient, or that its insurance carriers will
cover all claims or litigation costs. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably predict
at this time the timing or outcomes of these matters or estimate
the amount of losses, or range of losses, if any, or their effect,
if any, on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. is a gene therapy company
committed to discovering and developing novel medicines that can
offer potentially life-changing therapeutic benefit to patients
suffering from chronic or debilitating disease.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: To Seek Supreme Court Review of Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Bank Of The Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that counsel for the
Company and Bank are currently drafting a petition for writ of
certiorari to be filed with the Supreme Court of the United States
seeking a review of the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision.

On December 19, 2011, the Company and Bank were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled
Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the
Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks. On December 20, 2012, the
Bank was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth
Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v. Bank of the Ozarks. The
complaint in each case challenges the manner in which overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to posting order on
payments.  In addition, each complaint alleges violations of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  Each of the complaints
seeks to have the cases certified by the court as a class action
for all Bank account holders located in the State of Arkansas
similarly situated, and seeks (1) a declaratory judgment as to the
wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies, (2)
restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the
putative class as a result of the actions cited in the complaints,
(3) disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful
actions, (4) unspecified compensatory and statutory or punitive
damages, and (5) pre-judgment interest, costs, and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.

The Company and the Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the consumer deposit account
agreement in the Walker case, which was denied by the trial court.
The Company and the Bank appealed the trial court's ruling to the
Arkansas Supreme Court on an interlocutory basis.  The Arkansas
Supreme Court recently affirmed the trial courts' decision to deny
the Company and Bank's motion to compel arbitration, finding that
there was no mutual agreement or obligation to arbitrate under the
terms of the subject deposit account agreement.

The plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the
proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the appeals in the
Walker case.  Although there are significant uncertainties
involved in any purported class action litigation, the Company and
the Bank believe that the plaintiffs' claims in each of these
cases are subject to meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.


BECTON DICKINSON: Opposed Plaintiffs' Bid to File Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Plaintiffs have
sought to file an amended complaint, which BD has opposed.

On July 17, 2015, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia. The plaintiffs, Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority,
trading as Southeast Georgia Health System, and Southeast Georgia
Health System, Inc., seek to represent a class of acute care
purchasers of BD syringes and IV catheters. The complaint alleges
that BD monopolized the markets for syringes and IV catheters
through contracts, theft of technology, false advertising,
acquisitions, and other conduct. The complaint seeks treble
damages but does not specify the amount of alleged damages. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted
on January 29, 2016. Plaintiffs have sought to file an amended
complaint, which BD has opposed.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of
the suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous
defense of each of these matters.

Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") is a global medical
technology company engaged in the development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions,
life science researchers, clinical laboratories, the
pharmaceutical industry and the general public. The Company's
organizational structure is based upon two principal business
segments, BD Medical ("Medical") and BD Life Sciences ("Life
Sciences").


BEST BUY: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Refresh Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Brotherton, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Wisconsin couple have filed a class action lawsuit against
Best Buy and LG Electronics, alleging misrepresentation in the
refresh rates of their televisions -- but it could be difficult to
certify a class action in federal court under multiple states'
consumer protection acts, an attorney says.

Benjamin Hudock and Breann Hudock filed their lawsuit on May 9 in
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against LG
Electronics U.S.A. Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc., Best Buy Stores L.P.,
and Bestbuy.com LLC.  The suit alleges violations of New Jersey's
Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota's Consumer Fraud Act, the state's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Unlawful Trade
Practices Act.

"The class action may not hold up in federal court,"
Cary Silverman told Legal Newsline.  "New Jersey's Consumer Fraud
Act has a much broader scope in terms of what's included than
Minnesota's does."

Mr. Silverman, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Washington,
D.C., explained consumer protection law is different from state to
state.

"For example, Minnesota prohibits deceptive ads, but New Jersey
has a much more vague definition of what's prohibited," he said.
"In New Jersey, attorneys fees are mandatory if the plaintiff
wins, but in Minnesota, the plaintiff may get attorneys fees if
there is a willful violation.

"In Minnesota, plaintiffs may only recover actual costs (of
damages), but in New Jersey, the law reads treble, or three times,
the damages."

These are just a few of the differences between Minnesota and
New Jersey, which could make it difficult to award damages and
fees to each person in the class action, he said.  The plaintiffs
seek restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and actual damages,
attorney fees, penalties, interest, and other costs in the
lawsuit.

Mr. Silverman said he does not understand refresh rates and how it
affects television marketing and sales.

The Hudocks allege that the LED televisions that are labeled with
a refresh rate of 120 Hz or 240 Hz actually have a refresh rate of
60 Hz or 120 Hz.  By advertising a higher refresh rate, consumers
believe they are getting a higher quality television than they
are, the lawsuit claims.

"The higher the refresh rate, the better motion in focus,"
Mike Kline, head service technician with Johnny's TV in
Stillwater, Minn., recently told Legal Newline.

The refresh rate is the frequency at which the display of the
monitor is updated.

"In a 60 Hertz refresh rate, there are 60 frames per second,"
Mr. Kline explained.  "Essentially, in a higher refresh rate, you
get a smoother picture for movement."

The lawsuit alleges that Best Buy deceitfully mislabels the
televisions and charges a higher price for inferior televisions.
Mr. Kline could not comment on the lawsuit itself, but he does
know technical specifications of the LG brand.

"LG is a Korean manufacturer, not known for quality, but a price
point," Mr. Kline said.  "There could also be a difference in the
quality of the video processor, which could affect the picture
quality and refresh rate output."

PC Magazine explains that source footage is never greater than 60
Hz, even though newer televisions have a higher refresh rate.  The
added frames in the content doesn't come from more source
material, but from the television itself.  The television
interpolates new frames in between each of the source frames to
produce the higher frame rate.

PC Magazine reports that there isn't a huge difference in
performance from 120 Hz to 240 Hz.  In fact, it's recommended to
watch most television programs in the default 60 Hz refresh rate.
Some movies even use a 24 Hz refresh rate.  The higher rates are
better for sports or video games, but anything higher than 120 Hz
is more of a gimmick, it says.

Best Buy declined to comment on ongoing litigation.


BLUE STAR FARMS: Migrant Legal Aid Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bryce Huffman, writing for Michigan Radio, a migrant worker
advocacy group has filed a lawsuit against a Michigan blueberry
farm.

Teresa Hendricks is the executive director of Migrant Legal Aid.
She says Blue Star Farms failed to pay workers fairly.

"Workers that come up to Michigan to harvest, they're the poorest
of the working poor," Ms. Hendricks says, "and so every dollar
that they earn is critical to their survival."

Ms. Hendricks says Blue Star Farms shouldn't have much trouble
abiding by these laws, because the protections workers have a
right to are simple.

"It's simple, minimal protections for workers to make sure that
they're getting paid the minimum wage and make sure they're
working and living in conditions that are humane," Ms. Hendricks
says.

Ms. Hendricks says Anthony Marr, the owner of Blue Star Farms, is
no stranger to lawsuits.

"He was the manager of a farm that was hit in 2009 with a child
labor scandal," Ms. Hendricks says.

Blue Star Farms declined a request for comment.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Contreras" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Contreras v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068774-S (Conn. Super. Ct., June 2, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Appointed
----------------------------------------------------
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Shoemaker
court has entered an order appointing the City of Miami Fire
Fighters' & Police Officers' Retirement Trust and the County
Retirement Systems as Co-Lead Plaintiffs for representing the
putative class.

The Company said, "On February 12, 2016, a stockholder purporting
to represent a class of persons who purchased our securities
between September 12, 2011 and January 21, 2016 filed a lawsuit
against us and certain of our officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Paradis v.
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., et al., 2:16-cv-01011 (C.D. Cal.).
The lawsuit alleges that we made materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our
business, operational and financial performance, in violation of
federal securities laws, relating to (1) alleged kickbacks to
health care providers, (2) alleged off-label promotion of medical
devices, and (3) alleged violations of the Food and Drug
Administration's laws and regulations in connection with our
medical devices."

"On March 4, 2016, a second stockholder filed a similar lawsuit
against us and certain of our officers in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Shoemaker v.
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. et al., 0:16-cv-00568 (D. Minn.). The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
alleged class, interest, and attorney's fees and costs of
litigation.

"On April 12, 2016, four motions for appointment as lead plaintiff
were filed in the Paradis action and three of the four proposed
plaintiffs also filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff
in the Shoemaker action. On April 26, 2016, the Paradis action was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs in favor of the Shoemaker
action. That same day, the Shoemaker court entered an order
appointing the City of Miami Fire Fighters' & Police Officers'
Retirement Trust and the County Retirement Systems as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs for representing the putative class.

"We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and we intend to
defend ourself vigorously."


CAREFIRST INC: Court Tosses 2015 Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy H. Koo, writing for Bloomberg BNS, reports that health-care
insurance provider CareFirst Inc. won't have to face a class
action stemming from a 2015 data breach that potentially
compromised approximately 1.1 million consumers' sensitive
information, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
held May 27 (Chambliss v. CareFirst, Inc., 2016 BL 169810, D. Md.,
No. RDB-15-2288, 5/27/16).

Judge Richard D. Bennett said that the plaintiffs failed to allege
injury stemming from the data breach, and therefore, lacked
standing to bring the class claims.

In May 2015, CareFirst announced that hackers gained "limited,
unauthorized access" to the company's database, which didn't
contain member Social Security numbers, medical claims,
employment, credit card or financial information (14 PVLR 940,
5/25/15).

Plaintiffs, who held CareFirst health insurance during the breach,
filed suit over the company's alleged failure to protect
confidential personal information.

Moving to dismiss, CareFirst argued that the plaintiff failed to
allege injury, including increased risk.  The court agreed.

Although no courts in this circuit have addressed the standing
requirements in the context of data breach litigation, most courts
to consider the issue "have agreed that the mere loss of data --
without any evidence that it has been either viewed or misused --
does not constitute an injury sufficient to confer standing," the
court explained.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to "cite to a single
instance of data misuse even though a significant amount of time
has passed since the data breaches."

Further, it found that plaintiffs offered no factual allegations
showing that the data breach diminished the value of their
insurance.

Neuberger Quinn Gielen Rubin & Gibber PA and Federman and Sherwood
represented the plaintiffs.  Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
represented CareFirst.


CIRCLE GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Solis" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Violeta Solis, Cesar Salazar, Edgar Ceballos, Aaron Salas,
Hildeberto Aldeco Baltazar, Juan Ramon Rodriguez, and those
similarly situated v. The Circle Group, LLC, La Drywall Unlimited,
LLC, Javier Martinez Drywall, LLC, Gulf Coast, Inc., Jose Mendiola
(aka "Caballo"), Jesus Ornelas (aka "Chuy") Javier Martinez, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01329-NYW (D. Col., June 2, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime premiums for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants operate a drywall construction company that
performs work for residential and commercial development projects
around the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah J. Parady, Esq.
      Mary Jo Lowrey, Esq.
      LOWREY PARADY, LLC
      1725 High Street, Suite 1
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 593-2595
      Facsimile: (303) 502-9119
      E-mail: sarah@lowrey-parady.com
              maryjo@lowrey-parady.com

         - and -

      Alexander Hood, Esq.
      David Seligman, Esq.
      TOWARDS JUSTICE ATTORNEY
      AND DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION
      1535 High St., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (720) 239-2606
      Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
      E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org
              david@towardsjustice.org


CLARK-FLOYD LANDFILL: Residents Mull Class Action Over Odors
------------------------------------------------------------
Aprile Rickert, writing for News and Tribune, reports that some
residents living near the Clark-Floyd Landfill in Borden may soon
become part of a class action lawsuit against the facility
regarding odors.

The Indianapolis-based law firm Yosha, Cook and Tisch sent surveys
out to those residents living within certain parameters around the
landfill, 14304 Ind. 60, Borden, inquiring about any odor issues.

"Right now we're in the investigative stage," Richard Cook,
attorney at Yosha, Cook and Tisch, said.  "We're canvassing the
area around the landfill and exploring what kind of experience
land owners and people around the landfill have had."

Mr. Cook, who said he learned of the odor complaints through local
news reports, said he has received some feedback from residents so
far, but that it's still too early in his investigation to
determine if a claim will be filed or if it would be in state or
federal court.

"It's probably going to involve some time and going through and
evaluating the different types of complaints," he said.  "I'd just
like to find out accurately what's going on with all the
surrounding homeowners and what their experiences are.

"Ultimately you're just hoping to find out what's going on with
people and if we can be of service we'll pursue something."

Matt Lee, general manager at the Clark-Floyd Landfill, said on
June 7 he was not aware of the potential litigation.

The survey asks for the residents' basic information, including
address and email, whether they are a homeowner or tenant and how
long they have been at the current address.

"Have you noticed any odors from the landfill at your home? If
yes, please describe the odors," the survey asks.

It further asks how long any odors have been experienced and for
residents to describe "how the odors affect your ability to use
and enjoy your home."

A January Agricultural and Solid Waste compliance report from the
Indiana Department of Emergency Management confirms that there
have been odor complaints at the landfill; the report is noted as
a follow-up inspection on additional odor complaints.

"The complaints are concerning a strong odor which was occurring
in the areas surrounding the landfill," the report states,
including that the inspector "noted the odor on the northeast
corner of the landfill on Wilson Switch Road."

According to the report, the landfill requested an inspection by
Cornerstone Environmental, due to odor complaints, which was
performed Jan. 8 and 9.

It focused on areas which could be sources of significant odor --
special waste management, cover placement and landfill gas
management, according to the IDEM report.

IDEM's Jan. 16 report states that Cornerstone Environmental
inspection found that wastewater sludge and fly ash had been
previously mixed, but as of the inspection date, had been
separated so that fly ash was being mixed with dirt and
immediately covered and the wastewater sludge was being mixed with
municipal solid waste.

It had been recommended to the landfill in the Cornerstone
inspection that the soil and tarps covering the refuse at the end
of the day be increased, and the January 16 follow-cup from IDEM
confirms that it had.  It also states that the landfill has plans
to upgrade the gas collection system within 2016.

Martina Webster, Sellersburg Town Council member, said she
received the letter at her home, addressed to "resident or current
resident."

She said she lives what she considers pretty far from the
landfill, and that she hasn't smelled anything from her home, but
some of her constituents have.

She said one woman mentioned to her that it seemed to be worse
after rain, "which would lead to believe it has to do with the
leachate, possibly; I don't know.  That's just a guess,"
Ms. Webster said.

Leachate is the liquid that moves through the refuse into the
ground.  It is currently being drawn into reservoirs that are
emptied daily and driven by truck to Jeffersonville's wastewater
treatment plant, although there have been recent discussions with
the Town of Sellersburg to pipe the leachate into the town's
wastewater treatment center.

The proposal has not been voted on by the town council.


COMENITY CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Doherty" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Doherty, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Comenity Capital Bank, Case No. 3:16-cv-01321-H-BGS
(S.D. Cal., June 2, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without prior express consent of the called party.

Comenity Capital Bank operates a banking company headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino del Rio South,Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that Defendants' second motion
to dismiss remains pending with the New Jersey district court.

The Company said, "On September 10, 2014, a purported class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company, our Chief Executive
Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In
re Commvault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No.
3:14-cv-05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that we made materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
facts, regarding our financial results, business, operations and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class
period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock during that
period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as
well as equitable or other relief. Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas
Teachers Retirement System, was appointed on January 12, 2015, and
on March 18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs.

"On December 17, 2015, the defendant's motion to dismiss the case
was granted and the case dismissed; however, the plaintiffs were
permitted to re-file their claim, which they did on February 5,
2016.

"Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on April 5, 2016,
which remains pending with the court. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the
ultimate outcome of this matter. We are unable at this time to
determine whether the outcome of the litigation will have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows."


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Update in Canadian Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP and Crestwood Midstream Partners LP,
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016, provided updates on a Canadian class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "Prior to the completion of our acquisition of
Arrow Midstream Holdings, LLC (Arrow) on November 8, 2013, a train
transporting over 50,000 barrels of crude oil produced in North
Dakota derailed in Lac Megantic, Quebec, Canada on July 6, 2013.
The derailment resulted in the death of 47 people, injured
numerous others, and caused severe damage to property and the
environment.  In October 2013, certain individuals suffering harm
in the derailment filed a motion to certify a class action lawsuit
in the Superior Court for the District of Megantic, Province of
Quebec, Canada, on behalf of all persons suffering loss in the
derailment (the Class Action Suit)."

"In March 2014, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended motion
to name Arrow and numerous other energy companies as additional
defendants in the class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs alleged,
among other things, that Arrow (i) was a producer of the crude oil
being transported on the derailed train, (ii) was negligent in
failing to properly classify the crude delivered to the trucks
that hauled the crude to the rail loading terminal, and (iii) owed
a duty to the petitioners to ensure the safe transportation of the
crude being transported.  The motion to authorize the class action
and motions in opposition were heard by the Court in June 2014. In
June 2015, the Superior Court determined that the Class Action
Suit proceeding should be allowed to proceed against certain
respondents that have not contributed to the global settlement.
Because Arrow is a contributing party to the global settlement,
the Class Action Suit against Arrow has been stayed pending
finalization of the global settlement plan in the United States
and Canadian bankruptcy proceedings.

"One of the defendants in the lawsuit, Montreal Main & Atlantic
Railway (MM&A), filed bankruptcy actions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Maine and in the Canadian Bankruptcy
Court. The bankruptcy trustees in the proceedings approached the
respondents in the Class Action Suit (including Arrow) to
contribute monetary damages to a global settlement for all claims,
including any potential environmental damages, related to the Lac
Megantic derailment. During the first quarter of 2015, Crestwood
Midstream agreed to contribute to the global settlement in
exchange for a release from all claims related to the derailment,
including the Class Action Suit. In June 2015, the creditors in
the Canadian bankruptcy proceeding voted unanimously in favor of
the global settlement. The Canadian bankruptcy court approved the
bankruptcy plan (including the global settlement) on July 13,
2015, and the United States bankruptcy court approved a modified
version of the bankruptcy plan (including the global settlement)
on October 9, 2015. Consistent with the modified plan approved in
the US bankruptcy proceeding, the Canadian bankruptcy court also
approved a modified bankruptcy plan on October 9, 2015. The US and
Canadian bankruptcy proceedings were finalized in December 2015
and the funding of the settlement was complete. Crestwood
Midstream's contribution to the global settlement, in addition to
associated legal fees, is fully covered by insurance, and since
the global settlement is finalized, Arrow should not be exposed to
additional damages relating to the derailment.

"Additional lawsuits related to the derailment were filed and are
pending in United States courts. However, all of lawsuits have
been stayed as a result of the automatic stay arising from MM&A's
United States bankruptcy proceeding. Arrow has been named as a
defendant in 39 lawsuits pending in three different courts;
however, we expect these lawsuits to be dismissed with prejudice
upon disbursement of funds to the victims. An order of dismissal
has been signed by the judge. If an appeal of the order of
dismissal is not filed by May 6, 2016, these cases will be
dismissed.

"Based on Crestwood Midstream's contribution to the global
settlement and since the global settlement was approved by both
bankruptcy courts, we do not anticipate any material loss in this
matter after considering insurance."


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation Skg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal in a
shareholder class action lawsuit is pending before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In August 2014, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against
the Company and several of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that, between
October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and
omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo, an
animation film. The consolidated lawsuit seeks to recover damages
on behalf of shareholders as well as other equitable and
unspecified monetary relief.

The lead case is, ROOFERS LOCAL NO. 149 PENSION FUND, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG, INC., JEFFREY KATZENBERG, and LEWIS W.
COLEMAN, Defendants, Lead Case No. 2:14-cv-06053-SJO(Ex)(C.D.
Cal.).

On April 1, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action lawsuit and the
case was dismissed with prejudice on May 19, 2015. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal on June 18, 2015, and the matter
currently is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this consolidated
lawsuit. At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict
the ultimate outcome of this consolidated lawsuit, nor can it
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Lead Plaintiff-Appellant Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund is
represented by:

     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
     Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

          - and -

     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     Susan K. Alexander, Esq.
     Andrew S. Love, Esq.
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 288-4545
     Facsimile: (415) 288-4534

          - and -

     Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C.
     Michael J. Asher, Esq.
     1000 Maccabees Center
     25800 Northwestern Highway
     Southfield, lvii 48075-1000
     Telephone: (248) 746-0700
     Facsimile: (248) 746-2760

Defendants-Appellees DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., Jeffrey
Katzenberg, and Lewis W. Coleman are represented by:

     Cravath, Swathe & Moore LLP
     Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
     Karin A. DeMasi, Esq.
     Worldwide Plaza
     825 Eighth Avenue
     New York, NY 10019-7475
     Telephone: (212) 474-1000
     Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

          - and -

     Gibson, Dunn & Cmtcher LLP
     Meryl L. Young, Esq.
     3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
     Twine, CA 92612-4412
     Telephone: (949) 451-3800
     Facsimile: (949) 451-4220

          - and -

     Audrey K. Tan, Esq.
     333 South Grand Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
     Telephone: (213) 229-7000
     Facsimile: (213) 229-7520


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Urges 9th Cir. to Decertify Animators' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reported that Dreamworks, Disney,
Lucasfilm and Pixar on June 9 urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit to decertify a class of animation and visual
effects employees who accused the studios of engaging in an anti-
poaching conspiracy by secretly agreeing not to recruit one
another's workers.

Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc., The Walt Disney Co., Lucasfilm Ltd.
LLC, Pixar and Two Pic MC LLC filed a petition for permission to
appeal U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh's recent ruling in which
she found enough evidence to suggest classwide wage suppression.
The class period for most of the alleged conspirators stretches
from 2004 to 2010, though the animators had sought to include some
employees from before 2004.

According to Judge Koh, the class representatives had argued that
the alleged anti-solicitation conspiracy directly suppressed pay
for some animators because without the conspiracy, they would have
received lucrative job offers. Those wage-suppressing effects
spread throughout individual companies because the employers were
concerned with "internal equity," and in turn, the effects spread
across the industry because companies tried to keep their
compensation on par with their rivals, in the animators' telling.

Thursday's petition said determining whether class members knew
about the agreements at issue would require individualized
inquiries of roughly 10,000 class members.

"That many class members here had actual knowledge of their claims
years before this action was filed is no mere hypothetical, as the
alleged conspiracy was openly discussed in an extraordinary record
of meetings, blog posts, and emails," the petition said. "Indeed,
discovery revealed that two of the three named plaintiffs had such
knowledge long before filing suit."

The allegations of an anti-poaching conspiracy in the animation
business came to light after the U.S. Department of Justice
launched a probe into the hiring practices of Silicon Valley
companies.  That investigation led to a separate class action
accusing Apple Inc., Google Inc. and others of striking a deal not
to poach certain employees from one another. Judge Koh approved a
$415 million settlement in that case in September.

The animators reached a $5.9 million settlement to resolve their
claims against Blue Sky Studios, a unit of Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corp., in March. Sony Pictures Imageworks Inc. and Sony
Pictures Animation Inc. agreed in May to settle out of the
litigation for $13 million.

Plaintiffs' theory of classwide antitrust injury was consistent
with the one Judge Koh had endorsed in earlier litigation over an
alleged anti-poaching conspiracy in the high-technology industry.
Moreover, the animators backed up their narrative with enough
evidence to clear the class certification hurdle, according to
Judge Koh.

The judge in May found that the animators had a sufficient plan to
show classwide damages. The judge found that the animators'
economic expert, Orley C. Ashenfelter, had provided a valid
statistical model for damages that the defense expert, Michael C.
Keeley, failed to undermine despite making several critiques.

The judge did, however, block the animators from including
employees from as far back as 2001 in the class. That proposed
class definition was inconsistent with the current complaint, and
the defendants haven't had a chance to test whether the animators
sufficiently alleged fraudulent concealment from 2001 to 2003, the
judge said.

The studios on Thursday said the Ninth Circuit should review Judge
Koh's decision.

Attorney for the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to requests
for comment on June 9.

Dreamworks is represented by Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Daniel G.
Swanson and Rod J. Stone of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Disney,
Lucasfilm, Pixar and Two Pic are represented by Emily Johnson
Henn, Deborah A. Garza and Thomas A. Isaacson of Covington &
Burling LLP, and John W. Keker, Robert A. Van Nest and Cody S.
Harris of Keker & Van Nest LLP.

Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel A. Small of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP and Marc M. Seltzer of Susan Godfrey LLP.

The case is In Re: Animation Workers Antitrust Litigation, case
number 16-80077, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

                           *     *     *

Dreamworks Animation Skg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend against an antitrust class action in
California.

In September and October 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws
were filed against the Company and various other companies in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that the
defendants agreed to restrict competition through non-solicitation
agreements and agreements to fix wage and salary ranges. The
lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of all animation and
visual effect workers employed by the defendants during various
periods between 2001 and 2010.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the
ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate
a range of possible loss.


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Ex-Football Player Files Concussion Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amrith Ramkumar, writing for Duke Chronicle, reports that former
Duke football player Derrick Lee filed a class-action lawsuit
against the University, the ACC and the NCAA on June 8, claiming
the defendants were negligent in dealing with players' head
injuries.

Mr. Lee's lawsuit was one of four similar suits filed on June 8 by
law firm Edelson PC in district courts across the country for
players asserting that they still suffer from the effects of
concussions that occurred during their college football careers.
The three other suits filed on June 8 were filed on behalf of
players from Ohio State, Tennessee and Michigan.

"Defendants Duke, the ACC and the NCAA have kept their players and
the public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing
their athletes," states the filing for Mr. Lee's lawsuit, which
can be fully viewed below.

Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and
government relations, declined to comment until the suit could be
reviewed more thoroughly.

Edelson PC filed six similar lawsuits on behalf of players from
Penn State, Vanderbilt, Auburn, Georgia, Oregon and Utah in May.

Mr. Lee -- who played for the Blue Devils from 1998 to 2003 --
alleges that Duke, the ACC and the NCAA failed to implement
guidelines to prevent repeated head injuries, protocols to manage
concussions and procedures to educate players about the risks
associated with playing before 2010, despite knowing about the
dangers for several years.

Mr. Lee's class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all Duke
football players from 1953 to 2010, the year in which the NCAA
required schools to implement concussion management plans for all
sports.

The lawsuit alleges that Lee suffered several concussions during
his time as a college player that have affected him since he
stopped playing football and notes that Duke coaches encouraged
players to both suffer and inflict head injuries to help the
football program and generate revenue.


ENDOCYTE INC: Class Action Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the appeal in a class
action lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice.

On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte,
Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation"). On July 13, 2014,
a nearly identical complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Vivian Oh
Revocable Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh
Litigation"). On September 22, 2014, the court named a lead
plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and consolidated the Nguyen
Litigation and the Oh Litigation under the following caption:
Gopichand Vallabhaneni v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the
"Vallabhaneni Litigation"). On November 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended securities class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint") against the Company, P. Ron Ellis, Beth
Taylor, Michael A. Sherman, John C. Aplin, Philip S. Low, Keith E.
Brauer, Ann F. Hanham, Marc Kozin, Peter D. Meldrum, Fred A.
Middleton, Lesley Russell (the "Individual Defendants" and
collectively with the Company, the "Endocyte Defendants"), and
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff alleged, among
other things, that the Endocyte Defendants made false and
misleading statements relating to the efficacy of vintafolide and
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
putative class related to these allegations consists of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between March 21, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Lead Plaintiff
also alleged in the Amended Complaint that the Endocyte Defendants
and the Underwriter Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by,
among other things, making or allowing the Company to make false
and misleading statements regarding positive opinions about
vintafolide issued by the European Medicines Agency's Committee
for Medicinal Products for Human Use in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-3 filed on March 25, 2014, preliminary
prospectus filed on March 26, 2014, and final prospectus filed on
March 28, 2014. The putative class related to these allegations
consists of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
April 2, 2014 public offering.

Lead Plaintiff sought the designation of the Vallabhaneni
Litigation as a class action, an award of unspecified damages,
interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and
equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem
just and proper. Pursuant to a December 9, 2014 order, all
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015. Lead
Plaintiff filed a motion in opposition on April 6, 2015 to which
Defendants replied on April 20, 2015. The court dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice on January 4, 2016, but granted Lead
Plaintiff until February 1, 2016 to demonstrate sufficient facts
to justify an amended pleading. Lead Plaintiff did not respond,
and on February 2, 2016, the court amended the dismissal to be
with prejudice and a final order was so entered. Lead Plaintiff
appealed the final judgment on March 1, 2016. On March 31, 2016,
the appeal was voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice. No payments
or other consideration of any kind were offered or provided to
Lead Plaintiff in exchange for dismissal of the appeal.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal Filed in Regency Merger Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal is filed
in the Regency Merger Litigation.

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive
merger agreement with Regency, purported Regency unitholders filed
lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas, Texas and Delaware
state court asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.
All Regency merger related lawsuits have been dismissed, though
one lawsuit remains pending on appeal. On June 10, 2015, Adrian
Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of Regency's common unitholders
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit
alleges that the transaction did not comply with the Regency
partnership agreement because the conflicts committee was not
properly formed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and on
March 29, 2016, the Delaware court granted Defendants' motion and
dismissed the lawsuit. On April 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed its
Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware. This appeal is
styled Adrian Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, et al., No. 208, 2016, in
the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Updates on WMB Merger Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on the
Litigation Relating to the Merger with The Williams Companies,
Inc.

Between October 5, 2015, and December 24, 2015, purported Williams
stockholders filed six putative class action lawsuits in the
Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger. The suits are
captioned Greenwald et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 11573-VCG; Ozaki v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No.
11574-VCG; Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 11601-VCG; Glener et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 11606-VCG; Amaitis et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A.
No. 11809-VCG; and State-Boston Retirement System et al. v.
Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11844-VCG. The complaints assert
various claims against the individual members of Williams' board
of directors; ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP and ETE GP (the "ETE
Defendants"); Williams; and others. On January 13, 2016, the Court
consolidated these six actions into a new consolidated action
captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 11844-VCG (the "Merger Litigation"). In its
stipulated order, the Court dismissed without prejudice the ETE
Defendants (among others) from the consolidated action.

On January 14, 2016, a purported Williams stockholder
("Bumgarner") filed a putative class action lawsuit against
Williams and ETE, captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Bumgarner
alleges that ETE and Williams have violated Section 14 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making
allegedly false statements concerning the merger. As relief, the
complaint seeks an injunction against the proposed merger. On
February 1, 2016, Bumgarner filed an amended complaint, making
substantially the same allegations. On February 19, 2016, ETE and
Williams moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Bumgarner moved
for expedited discovery on April 21, 2016. On April 28, 2016, the
Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed Bumgarner's
claims in their entirety with leave to amend. The Court also
granted expedited proceedings with respect to any further
proceedings.

On January 19, 2016, The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System ("CBRRS"), a purported shareholder of Williams, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the members of Williams'
board of directors, Williams, ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP, and ETE GP
challenging the merger and the disclosures made in connection with
the merger. The lawsuit was styled City of Birmingham Retirement
and Relief System v. Alan S. Armstrong, et al., C.A. No. 16-17-
RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware. CBRRS alleged violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act among other claims. CBRRS moved to expedite, and
Defendants moved to dismiss the suit. The Court denied expedition.
CBRRS voluntarily dismissed the suit on March 7, 2016.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Updates on Unitholder Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on the so-
called Unitholder Litigation.

In April 2016, two purported ETE unitholders (the "Issuance
Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits against, Energy
Transfer Equity, L.P. and LE GP, LLC, Kelcy Warren, John
McReynolds, Marshall McCrea, Matthew Ramsey, Ted Collins, K. Rick
Turner, William Williams, Ray Davis, and Richard Brannon in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. These lawsuits have been consolidated
as In re Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. Unitholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 12197-VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware. One of the Issuance Plaintiffs had initially
filed an action to inspect the books and records of ETE on April
11, 2016 but voluntarily dismissed the books and records action on
April 22, 2016.

The Issuance Plaintiffs allege that the Issuance breached various
provisions of ETE's limited partnership agreement. The Issuance
Plaintiff seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief that (a) prevents ETE from making distributions
to the Convertible Units and (b) invalidates an amendment to ETE's
partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of
the issuance of Convertible Units.

One of the Issuance Plaintiffs moved for expedited proceedings.
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted a Motion to Expedite filed
by one of the Issuance Plaintiffs and stated that the injunction
hearing should be held before any August 2016 distribution.
Defendants intend to vigorously defend this consolidated lawsuit.


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Filed in "Kristensen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Enova International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Plaintiff in the class
action by Flemming Kristensen filed a notice of appeal of the
order granting summary judgment for the Company.

On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against the Company and other
unaffiliated lenders and lead providers. The lawsuit alleges that
the lead provider defendants sent unauthorized text messages to
consumers on behalf of the Company and the other lender defendants
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages, an
injunction against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees
and costs. The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying
all liability.

On March 26, 2014, the Court granted class certification. On July
20, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment, denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, on
July 21, 2015, entered judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiff
filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the order
granting summary judgment for the Company, the judgment in favor
of the company, and the order denying Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's claims in the complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

The Company operates an internet-based lending platform to serve
customers in need of cash to fulfill their financial
responsibilities.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Updates on 4 Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on
four different putative class action lawsuits filed against AMR
and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws.

On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8,
2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura
Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles; and on March 11, 2010, Melanie
Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles. The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases
have been coordinated in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian
cases have subsequently been consolidated into a single action. In
these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR
entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in
compliance with California law, and failed to provide required
meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed
breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes on these
claims and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and
attorneys' fees under California law. While certification of the
rest period claims in the consolidated Karapetian/ Aguilar case
was denied, the Court certified classes on claims alleging that
AMR has not provided meal periods in compliance with the law as to
dispatchers and call takers, that AMR has an unlawful time
rounding policy, and that AMR has an unlawful practice of setting
rates for those employees. On October 13, 2015, the Court
decertified all classes in the Karapetian/ Aguilar case, a
decision that is being appealed. In the Banta case, the Court
denied certification of the meal and rest period claims as to EMTs
and paramedics, a decision that plaintiff's counsel appealed. The
appeal was denied because of the pendency of other class and
representative claims in the case. The Court indicated that it
would certify a class on overtime claims and plaintiff's counsel
indicated an intention to dismiss that claim as AMR's policy
complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision. To date, these
claims have not been dismissed. In the Bartoni case, the Court
denied certification on the meal and rest period claims of all
unionized employees in Northern California, a decision that is
being appealed; while the Court certified a class on the overtime
claims, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to decertify and dismiss
those claims as AMR's policy complies with a recent Court of
Appeals decision. The Company is unable at this time to estimate
the amount of potential damages, if any.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Gilbert DeVries, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 4:16-cv-02953-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates an information
services company located at 475 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
      REESE RICHMAN LLP
      875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com


FIREEYE INC: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Denied
----------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court denied the
Company and the individual defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara,
against the Company, current and former members of our Board of
Directors, current and former officers, and the underwriters of
our March 2014 follow-on public offering.  On July 17, 2014, a
substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against
the same defendants. The actions were consolidated and, on March
4, 2015, an amended complaint was filed, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the
follow-on public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.  On April 20, 2015, defendants filed
demurrers seeking that the amended complaint be dismissed. On
August 11, 2015, the court overruled defendants' demurrers. On
November 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification
of the putative class, currently scheduled for a hearing on May
13, 2016. On January 6, 2016, the Company and the individual
defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking
that the action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, which was denied by the court on April 1, 2016.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.  Based on
information currently available, the Company has determined that
the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not
reasonably estimable.


FIREEYE INC: Bid to Dismiss N.D. Cal. Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no ruling has been
issued on the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. On June 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 2,
2014, and November 4, 2014. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class. On August 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss, which was heard on November 12, 2015. No ruling has
been issued on the motion.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on
information currently available, the Company has determined that
the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not
reasonably estimable.


FITBIT INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Sleep Tracking Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the Company is awaiting
the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
related to the sleep tracking function of its devices.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available
in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs
seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief
as the Court may deem just and proper.

Plaintiffs have amended their complaint four times, and on January
15, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss that had been
scheduled for March 16, 2016 was taken off the calendar, and the
Company is awaiting the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: Consolidated Suit Filed Over Heart Rate Monitoring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed a
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint related to heart rate
monitoring.

On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California, alleging that
the PurePulse heart rate monitoring technology in the Fitbit
Charge HR and Fitbit Surge do not consistently and accurately
record users' heart rates. Plaintiffs allege common law claims as
well as violations of various states' false advertising and unfair
competition statutes based on our sale and marketing of the Fitbit
Charge HR and Fitbit Surge. Plaintiffs seek class certification,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive
damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint that combines the plaintiffs from the two
previously filed complaints. The Company has not yet answered.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: Amended Complaint in Securities Case Due July 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of
California entered a scheduling order in the case BRIAN H. ROBB,
Plaintiff, v. FITBIT INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-
00151-SI (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the Order is available at
https://is.gd/IJG5nL from Leagle.com.

The Order provides that:

     1. Lead Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later
        than July 1, 2016;

     2. Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint shall
        be filed on or before July 29, 2016.

     3. The Case management conference shall be rescheduled to
        October 14, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., or such subsequent date
        that is convenient for the Court.

Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that a Court has not yet
appointed the lead plaintiff in the federal securities class
action.

On January 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuit
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company and the officers
for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements
regarding its business and operations between June 18, 2015 and
November 13, 2015. The complaint alleges that Fitbit
misrepresented the accuracy of its heart rate monitoring
technology, and that when "the truth" was revealed by the filing
of the heart rate monitoring class action on January 6, 2016, the
Company's stock price fell. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities (i) on the open market between June 18, 2015 and
January 6, 2016; and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the
initial public offering, or IPO. Plaintiff seeks class
certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On April 15, 2016, the Court held the lead plaintiff hearing.

In an order dated May 10, 2016, available at http://goo.gl/EaA3Ff
from Leagle.com, Judge Illston granted Fitbit Investor Group's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FITBIT INC: To Defend Against State Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that on April 28, 2016, a
putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o, was
filed in the Superior Court of California in the County of San
Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers,
its board members, its underwriters in the IPO, and a number of
other entities and individuals who are investors in the Company.
The complaint alleges that Fitbit misrepresented the accuracy of
its heart rate monitoring technology in the Registration Statement
it filed with the SEC on May 7, 2015, and that when "the truth"
was revealed by the filing of the heart rate monitoring class
action on January 6, 2016, the Company's stock price fell.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased
Fitbit common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's June 22,
2015 IPO. Plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


FORD MODELS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Fractenberg, writing for dnainfo, reports that three
professional models claimed they were exploited for years by some
of the top agencies, including Ford Models, Wilhelmina and Next
Management, according to a class-action lawsuit filed on June 6.

Models Shawn Pressley, Roberta Little and Mel Platzke said the
agencies "literally steal millions of dollars" from their models
through schemes like deducting "significant amounts" from
paychecks for bogus expenses, erroneously classifying them as
"independent contractors" to avoid labor laws and refusing to pay
them the full amount owed under contracts with clients, the suit
claimed.

"The modeling industry has a glamorous fa‡ade, but scratch the
surface and its dark underbelly comes to light," their lawyers
wrote.

"Long past are the days when top models commanded thousands of
dollars for each fashion show.  Today, models may earn only
several hundred dollars for a substantial volume of work -- or
they may just get paid in clothes rather than currency."

The models also said the agencies purposely delayed paychecks so
models "would be forced to borrow money" from them, which the
agencies would typically charge 5 percent interest on.

"Many of the models were young men and women from modest
backgrounds who moved to a new state to begin their modeling
careers, usually without substantial assets or financial
resources," the lawsuit read.

The agencies also tried to control their models' appearance
outside of work and "maintained tabs on their behavior, appearance
and dress" through social media accounts like Instagram, according
to court papers.

Ms. Pressley and Ms. Platzke were also charged legal fees by Ford
after a client failed to pay an $80,000 bill for modeling
services.  The client eventually paid Ford $18,000, according to
the lawsuit, but Ms. Pressley was paid just $798 while her male
counterpart, Ms. Platzke, was paid "several thousand dollars
more," even though he had worked fewer hours at a lower rate.

Ms. Pressley also worked with Wilhelmina from 2002 through 2012,
where she was not allowed to be involved in negotiating details
about her assignments and was "discouraged" from turning down
assignments lest the agency refuse to promote her future work.

There was another class-action lawsuit filed against major
agencies including Ford, Wilhelmina, Click and Next in 2013,
according to court records.

Those models, including Alex Shanklin and Louisa Raske, also
claimed they had not been properly paid for their work.

None of the agencies returned an immediate request for comment.


FTD COMPANIES: Settlement Awaits Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the district court has
not yet set the hearing date for the pending final settlement
approval motion.

Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer
class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc.
and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing
International ("EMI"). These cases were ultimately consolidated
during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs'
claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based
membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope
Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership
Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered items from
certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were presented with
an offer to enroll in one of the Membership Programs, each of
which is offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to
represent a putative nationwide class of consumers allegedly
damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or otherwise
allegedly improper transferring of the putative class members'
billing information to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized
charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees
for the Membership Programs.

On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed
motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August
13, 2010 and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended
complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14,
2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint.
Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in
the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against
Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only);
(3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4)
fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9)
negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs. Provide Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss
the claims of plaintiffs Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on
January 24, 2012. The motions to dismiss were fully briefed as of
February 23, 2012, but the court had not yet conducted a hearing
or ruled on the motions. The parties participated in numerous
settlement conferences and mediations throughout the case in an
effort to resolve this matter.

On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the high
level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties
negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the
weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal
written settlement agreement ("Settlement"). Upon reaching the
Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and
Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended
complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and
briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval
hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013,
and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the
hearing.

On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving
class action settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling
objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court
entered judgment on the settlement on February 21, 2013. The
objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the
Ninth Circuit set oral argument on the appeal for February 2,
2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order
deferring argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in a matter captioned Frank v.  Netflix, No. 12
15705+. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v.  Netflix,
No. 12 15705+ on February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's
approval of a settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix
DVD subscribers.

On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the
judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with Frank v. Netflix. The Ninth
Circuit's mandate issued on April 14, 2015, and the matter is now
pending before the district court to consider final approval of
the Settlement in light of Frank v. Netflix. On April 23, 2015,
the district court entered an order reopening the case and
ordering the parties to jointly submit a memorandum summarizing
the import of the Frank v. Netflix decision and stating their
intentions going forward.

On May 4, 2015, such memorandum was filed by the parties and the
objector also filed his own memorandum regarding these same topics
on such date. After receiving the parties and objector's
memoranda, the district court ordered supplemental briefing on the
issue of final settlement approval on May 21, 2015. The parties
filed their respective opening supplemental briefs on June 18,
2015, the objector filed his opposition supplemental brief on July
2, 2015, and the parties filed their respective reply supplemental
briefs on July 16, 2015. The district court has not yet set the
hearing date for the pending final settlement approval motion.

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

Information on the case is available at:

     http://www.membershipprogramsettlement.com/


GANNETT: Appellate Court Won't Reconsider Ruling in Privacy Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that a federal
appellate court won't reconsider an earlier ruling that Gannett
may have violated a video privacy law by allegedly sending Adobe
information about people who downloaded USA Today's app.

A majority of the judges on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals voted
against re-hearing the case, according to court records that
became public late on June 7.

The move leaves Gannett facing a potential class-action filed by
Massachusetts resident Alexander Yershov, who alleges the USA
Today app violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act by
sharing information about Android users -- including device
identifiers, geolocation data and video viewing history -- with
Adobe.

Gannett argued that the case should be dismissed at an early stage
for several reasons. The company contended that Android device
identifiers -- a string of numbers unique to each device
-- are not personally identifiable information.  The company also
says people who download a free app aren't "subscribers."

A trial judge dismissed the case, but a three-judge panel of the
1st Circuit unanimously revived the potential class-action
lawsuit.  The appellate judges wrote that device identifiers
combined with geolocation data could be personally identifiable.

The opinion pointed to allegations that Adobe has additional
information enabling it to link GPS addresses and device
identifiers to particular names, addresses and phone numbers.  But
the judges also noted that additional development of the case --
including whether Adobe "foreseeably can identify" users -- might
ultimately result in dismissal.

Earlier this month, Gannett asked the court to reconsider its
ruling.  The IAB, New York Times and others supported that
request, arguing that the decision marked an "unwarranted and
unprecedented expansion" of the Video Privacy Protection Act. They
added that the decision "risks exposing companies to broad class
action liability for routine digital transactions that are
essential to online content distribution."


GERON CORPORATION: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities
class action lasuit in California, according to its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported class action
securities lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, or the California
District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our
officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of
imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or
polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence
of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities
observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients
and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term
exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees."

"On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on
June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class
action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District
Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These
lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the
purported class action securities lawsuit that commenced on March
14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both
of the purported class action securities lawsuits filed in the
California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the
purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court
ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended
complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on
September 19, 2014.

"On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities
lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California
District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District
Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the
California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with
the Class Action Lawsuits.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District
Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the
allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied
our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us.  On May 22, 2015, we filed our
answer to the consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action
Lawsuits.

"It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or
allegations made by stockholders, with respect to these same or
other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors
as defendants. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend
to defend against these lawsuits vigorously."

Geron is a biopharmaceutical company that currently supports the
clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat,
in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen Biotech, Inc., or
Janssen.


GOPRO INC: Amended Complaints Due to be Filed by June 21
--------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that beginning on January 13, 2016, the
first of four purported shareholder class action lawsuits was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of our
officers. Similar complaints were filed on January 21, 2016,
February 4, 2016 and February 19, 2016. Each of the complaints
purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased our
publicly traded securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13,
2016 for the first three complaints and between November 26, 2014
and January 13, 2016 for the last filed complaint. Each complaint
purports to allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements about our business, operations and prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and each seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees
and costs.

On April 21, 2016, the court consolidated the complaints and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the first three
actions (the "Camia Investments Class Action"); the court allowed
the fourth action to proceed separately as to the period November
26, 2014 through July 20, 2015 (the "Majesty Palms Class Action")
and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action.
Amended complaints are expected to be filed by June 21, 2016.

GoPro, Inc. (GoPro or the Company) makes mountable and wearable
cameras and accessories. The Company's products are sold globally
through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's
website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are located
in San Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Class Action Filed Related to IPO
--------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that on January 25, 2016, a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of our current and former directors and executive
officers and underwriters of our IPO. The complaint purports to
bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased our stock
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with our IPO and purports to allege claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

GoPro, Inc. (GoPro or the Company) makes mountable and wearable
cameras and accessories. The Company's products are sold globally
through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's
website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are located
in San Mateo, California.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Durand Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, 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 Durand class action litigation in
Kentucky.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit
captioned Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.,
and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky. The named plaintiff, a former employee of our former
life insurance and annuity business who received a lump sum
distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at
or about the time of her separation from the company, claims that
she and others similarly situated did not receive the appropriate
lump sum distribution because in computing the lump sum, the
Company and the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the
calculation. The plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her
distributions and those of similarly situated participants by
failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting
the present value of an estimate of future interest credits from
the date of the lump sum distribution to each participant's
retirement age of 65 ("whipsaw claim")."

"The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009.  Two of the
three new claims set forth in the Amended Complaint were dismissed
by the District Court, which action was upheld in November 2015 by
the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.  The District Court,
however, did allow to stand the portion of the Amended Complaint
which set forth claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary
duty and failure to meet notice requirements arising under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") from the
various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of
which plaintiffs complain, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw"
claim that remained in the case.

"On December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a
class to bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty
claims consisting of all persons who received a lump sum
distribution between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003. The
Company filed a summary judgment motion, prior to the decision on
the appeal, that was based on the statute of limitations and seeks
to dismiss the subclass of plaintiffs who received lump sum
distributions prior to March 13, 2002.  This summary judgment
motion has been stayed pending additional discovery.

"At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the
outcome of the suit is unfavorable. The statute of limitations
applicable to the sub-class consisting of all persons who received
lump sum distributions between March 1, 1997 and March 12, 2002
has not yet been finally determined, and the extent of potential
liability, if any, will depend on this determination. In addition,
assuming for these purposes that the plaintiffs prevail with
respect to claims that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan
were understated, then there are numerous possible theories and
other variables upon which any revised calculation of benefits as
requested under plaintiffs' claims could be based. Any adverse
judgment in this case against the Plan would be expected to create
a liability for the Plan, with resulting effects on the Plan's
assets available to pay benefits. The Company's future required
funding of the Plan could also be impacted by such a liability."


HF FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Stockholder Clas Suit
--------------------------------------------------
HF 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 defendants have
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with
counsel for the plaintiff.

On December 14, 2015, Shiva Y. Stein, a purported stockholder of
the Company, filed a putative stockholder class action and
derivative complaint in the Circuit Court of Minnehaha County,
South Dakota captioned Stein v. HF Financial Corp., et al., No.
15-3373. The complaint was subsequently amended on March 7, 2016.
The lawsuit names as defendants the Company, each of the current
members of the Company's Board of Directors and Great Western. The
complaint asserts that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by purportedly failing to take adequate steps to
enhance the Company's stockholder value as a merger candidate by
not acting independently to protect the interests of the Company's
stockholders and by failing to make adequate disclosure in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 as filed on March 3, 2016. The
complaint further asserts that the Company and Great Western aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The
complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the action may be
maintained as a class action; (ii) injunctive relief to prevent
the consummation of the Merger; (iii) in the event the Merger is
consummated, rescission of the transaction or rescissionary
damages; (iv) an order directing the defendants to account to the
plaintiff for damages because of alleged wrongdoing; (v) an award
to plaintiff of costs and disbursements including attorneys' and
experts' fees; and (vi) other relief as may be just and proper. On
April 5, 2016, the plaintiff filed its Memorandum of Law in
Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The
Court set a hearing date for April 27, 2016.

On April 22, 2016, the defendants to the aforementioned litigation
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with
counsel for the plaintiff, pursuant to which the Company agreed to
make certain additional disclosures concerning the Merger, which
were set forth in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 27, 2016.

In accordance with the terms of the MOU, the plaintiff agreed to
stay the proceeding and to withdraw its request for a preliminary
injunction. In addition, the MOU contemplates that, subject to the
completion of confirmatory discovery by plaintiff's counsel, the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement contemplated by the parties will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to the Company's stockholders. In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and release all
claims that were or could have been brought in any actions
challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that
will be disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the
Court's final approval of the settlement. The MOU will not affect
the amount of the consideration to be received by any of the
Company's stockholder in the Merger. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement, or that the Court will approve the settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation. The MOU may be
rendered null and void, if, among other reasons, (i) the Court
fails to enter a final order and judgment approving the
settlement, or (ii) the Merger Agreement is terminated by the
parties thereto or the Merger is not consummated for any reason.
On April 27, 2016, the Court entered an order vacating the
preliminary injunction hearing and setting the schedule for
completion of the settlement.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible
loss or range of loss from this matter. In addition to the above
described lawsuit, the Company, the Bank and each of their
subsidiaries are, from time to time, involved as plaintiff or
defendant in various legal actions arising in the normal course of
their businesses. While the ultimate outcome of any such
proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, it is generally
the opinion of management, after consultation with counsel
representing the Bank and the Company in any such proceedings,
that the resolution of any such proceedings should not have a
material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position
or results of operations. The Company, the Bank and each of their
subsidiaries are not aware of any material legal actions or other
proceedings contemplated by governmental authorities outside of
the normal course of business.


HIGHER ONE: Plaintiffs Oppose Case Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Plaintiffs have filed
an opposition brief opposing dismissal of a Securities Class
Action.

On May 27, 2014, a putative class action captioned Brian Perez v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH
shareholder Brian Perez in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut. On December 17, 2014, Mr. Perez was
appointed lead plaintiff. On January 20, 2015, Mr. Perez filed an
amended complaint. HOH former shareholder Robert Lee was added as
a named plaintiff in the amended complaint. HOH and certain
employees and board members have been named as defendants. Mr.
Perez and Mr. Lee generally allege that HOH and the other named
defendants made certain misrepresentations in public filings and
other public statements in violation of the federal securities
laws and seek an unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez and Mr.
Lee seek to represent a class of any person who purchased HOH
securities between August 7, 2012 and August 6, 2014. All
defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint. In response,
Plaintiffs have filed an opposition brief opposing dismissal.

HOH intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.
HOH is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and
therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a
range of possible loss.


HIGHER ONE: Labor Case Parties Proceed to Private Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in the
labor class action have submitted the matter to private mediation.

On December 28, 2015, Patricia Hall, formerly an employee of
Higher One Machines, Inc. filed a class action captioned Patricia
Hall, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Higher One Machines, Inc., Higher One, Inc., and Higher One
Holdings, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-00670-F, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Ms. Hall
generally alleges that Higher One, Inc., and the other named
defendants, willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and breached her employment
contract for failing to compensate her for her daily breaks and
the time it took her to log-on to and sign-off from various
databases and systems that she needed to access to perform the
functions of her employment.

Ms. Hall seeks to represent a nationwide class and a North
Carolina class of current and former hourly home-based customer
care agents who worked for Higher One, Inc. at any time from 2012
through 2015. Ms. Hall served Higher One, Inc. and the other named
defendants with her complaint, but a response has not been filed
at this time.

Since the filing of the action, the parties have submitted the
matter to private mediation.  "We have recorded an estimated loss
of approximately $1.0 million related to this matter, which is
included in general and administrative expenses during the three
months ended March 31, 2016 and is recorded in accrued expenses as
of March 31, 2016," the Company said.


HORIZON REALTY: Refunds Cleaning Fee to Chase Village Tenants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elon Glucklich, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that some
University of Oregon and Lane Community College students last year
sensed something wasn't right when the manager of Chase Village
Apartments asked for a $400 "restoration charge" as part of their
lease agreements.

Liz Miller, a UO law student, called the Hutchinson Cox law firm
of Eugene.  She wondered: Could Horizon Realty Advisors, the
management firm, demand money at the start of a tenancy for an
anticipated landlord expense after they moved out?

"She contacted us, and we confirmed it.  The fee was improper,"
Hutchinson Cox attorney Frank Gibson said.

Now, Horizon Realty, which manages Chase Village and four other
Eugene and Corvallis rental complexes, is repaying the $400
cleaning fee to more than 1,000 tenants, who sued in a class-
action lawsuit claiming the fee violated state law.

Horizon has already refunded $246,920 in fees it charged tenants
between Dec. 23, 2014 and Dec. 22 of last year, under a settlement
reached in late May, documents filed in Lane County Circuit Court
show.

An additional $43,790 in refund checks had been sent but hadn't
been cashed as of April 30, the documents say.

Rental deposits are standard policy for landlords, providing money
in case tenants leave property in disrepair.  But landlords refund
deposits to former occupants if rentals are left in good shape.

But the plaintiffs and attorneys in the Horizon Realty case argued
the non-refundable fee violated state landlord-tenant laws, which
allow fees for late rent payments, checks that bounce, damaged
smoke detectors and violations of pet policies, but not for
anticpated cleanup at the start of a tenancy.

The suit also claimed Horizon Realty collected the $400 fee
without listing it in the written rental agreement tenants signed,
another violation of state law.

Tenants in December filed a notice to sue Horizon Realty and Chase
Village LLC, the entity that owns the apartment complex. They
formally sued in February.

Sometime between the pending suit notice and the lawsuit's filing,
Horizon Realty began refunding the fees, court documents show.

Horizon officials declined to comment.

According to the court documents, the case began last August, when
Dillon Redican and Jessica Gold moved into Chase Village, on
Marche Chase Drive east of Autzen Stadium.  The LCC students
signed a one-year lease agreement and a "move-in addendum," which
included the non-refundable $400 "restoration charge," to clean
carpets and touch up paint after they moved out.

Miller, the UO law student, moved into Chase Village around the
same time, according Mr. Gibson, who represented the tenants in
the case against Horizon Realty.

Mr. Gibson said that Ms. Miller became suspicious of the charge
and contacted his law firm.

Ms. Miller then confronted a manager at Chase Village, who
refunded her the $400.

Redican and Gold, friends of Ms. Miller, retained Mr. Gibson and
filed a civil lawsuit against Chase Village LLC and Horizon
Realty, on behalf of themselves and other tenants who paid the
fee.

The suit was later changed to include owners of two other Eugene
apartment complexes managed by Horizon -- Stadium Park, just north
of Chase Village, and Forest Hills, off Goodpasture Island Road --
and two Corvallis apartment complexes.

Horizon Realty didn't defend the fee in court documents, nor did
the firm admit any wrongdoing.  Instead, it began sending written
notices to tenants informing them that "Horizon Realty Advisors
LLC will refund any non-refundable restoration fees paid by
tenants."  The notices added that the firm "will not charge
tenants at residential properties that they own or manage any fee
that does not comply" with state landlord-tenant law.


HUGO BOSS: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Hugo Boss Retail, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-21989-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Hugo Boss Retail, Inc. operates a luxury fashion house
headquartered in Metzingen, Germany.

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


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: 4 Merger Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------
TDK Corporation ("TDK") and Hutchinson Technology Incorporated
(NASDAQ:HTCH) ("HTI") on November 2, 2015, jointly announced that
they have entered into a definitive merger agreement under which
TDK will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
HTI for base consideration of US$3.62 per share, plus additional
consideration of up to US$0.38 per share, depending on the level
of cash (subject to certain adjustments) less any outstanding
borrowings on HTI's revolving line of credit ("net cash") held by
HTI as of the last day of the fiscal month immediately preceding
the closing date. The amount of additional consideration, if any,
will equal approximately US$0.01 per share for each US$500,000 of
HTI's net cash over US$17.5 million as of the measurement date. As
of September 27, 2015, HTI's net cash position was approximately
US$40 million. In addition to the satisfaction of HTI's
outstanding debt, the merger values HTI's equity at approximately
$126 million to $140 million on a fully diluted basis.

Hutchinson 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 following the announcement of the
Merger, four actions were filed in November and December 2015 by
purported shareholders of the company in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota. The actions are
captioned David Erickson v. Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04261-DSD-LIB, Stephen M. Harnik v.
Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-
04321, Jesse Hendricks v. Richard J.Penn, et al., Case No. 0:15-
cv-04338, and Matthew Ridler and Lori Ridler v. Hutchinson
Technology Incorporated, Case No. 0:15-cv-04356-MJD-TNL.

The plaintiffs each purport to bring their action as a class
action on behalf of the company's public shareholders. All four
complaints name the company and its directors as defendants, and
allege that they have violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of, and
Rule 14a-9 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a
preliminary proxy statement that contains materially incomplete
and misleading statements and omissions. The Hendricks complaint
also names Parent and Merger Subsidiary as defendants, and
includes claims under state law for breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable relief
under the Minnesota Business Corporation Act. The Hendricks
complaint alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the company by operating an inadequate sale
process, agreeing to a merger with Parent and Merger Subsidiary at
an unfair price, and agreeing to deal protection provisions that
are unfavorable to the company and its shareholders.

All of the federal complaints seek injunctive and equitable
relief, including an order enjoining the closing of the Merger
until the alleged deficiencies in the preliminary proxy statement
have been corrected; damages in an unspecified amount; and an
award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements.

The defendants have not yet responded to any of the complaints,
but intend to move to dismiss the actions.

"We believe that the actions are without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against all claims asserted," Hutchison said.

In the case, David Erickson, Plaintiff, v. Hutchinson Technology
Incorporated, Richard Penn, Wayne M. Fortun, Martha Goldberg
Aronson, Russell Huffer, Frank P. Russomanno, Philip E. Soran,
Thomas R. Verhage, Defendants, Civil No. 15-4261(DSD/LIB)(D.
Minn.), District Judge David S. Doty in January denied plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote
until defendants disclose certain omitted information.  A copy of
the Court's January 26, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IUf51D from Leagle.com.

In an April 4 decision, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending the approval of a Motion to
Consolidate Cases filed by plaintiffs Matthew and Lori Ridler.
Judge Brisbois recommended the approval of the Ridlers as lead
plaintiff and their lawyers as lead counsel.

In an April 20 Order, Judge Doty adopted the Report and
Recommendation.

Erickson is represented by:

     Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
     James W. Anderson, Esq.
     HEINS MILLS & OLSON P.L.C.
     310 Clifton Avenue
     Minneapolis, MN 55403
     Tel: (612) 338-4605
     Fax: (612) 338-4692
     E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
             janderson@heinsmills.com

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
             mschreiner@faruqilaw.com

Harnick is represented by:

      Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 338-4605
      Fax: (612) 338-4692
      Email: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
             janderson@heinsmills.com

       - and -

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 759-4600
      Fax: (212) 486-2093
      Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
             fqian@wolfpopper.com

The Ridlers are represented by:

      Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 338-4605
      Fax: (612) 338-4692
      Email: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
             janderson@heinsmills.com

           - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: srowley@zlk.com
             sbartone@zlk.com


HYUNDAI OF MATTESON: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Robinson and Lester Rodgers v. Hyundai of Matteson, LLC, Case
No. 1:16-cv-05821 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum under the United States Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Hyundai of Matteson, LLC is a new and used car dealer located in
Matteson, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher V. Langone, Esq.
      332 S. Michigan, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (607) 592-2661
      E-mail: langonelaw@gmail.com


IMPRIVATA INC: Faces "Coyer" Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Imprivata, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint was filed
on February 2, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts captioned Coyer v. Imprivata, Inc., et
al, Case 1:16-cv-10160-LTS (D. Mass.), on behalf of a putative
class of our stockholders, naming us as a defendant as well as Mr.
Omar Hussain, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr.
Jeffrey Kalowski, our Chief Financial Officer, as well as certain
investors who sold shares of our common stock in an offering in
August 2015.  The complaint, brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between July 30, 2015 and November 2,
2015, generally alleges that we and the named officers made false
and/or misleading statements about the demand for our IT security
solutions and sales trends and failed to disclose facts about our
business, operations and performance.  The complaint brings causes
of action for violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against us and the
two named officers, as well as for "control person" liability
under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, as
amended, against the officers and the non-Company defendants.  The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and unspecified costs
and fees.


INKAY CORP: Faces "Segura" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Elyn Segura, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Inkay Corp.
d/b/a Flor de Broadway and Stephany Lopez-Fulgencio, Case No.
1:16-cv-04099 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 3395
Broadway New York, New York, 10031.

Elyn Segura is a pro se plaintiff.


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: S.D.N.Y. Securities Litigation Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Technology Group, Inc. is defending against a
securities class action in the Southern District of New York, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2016.

On August 12, 2015, the Company reached a final settlement with
the staff of the Division of Enforcement of the SEC in connection
with the SEC's investigation into a proprietary trading pilot
operated within AlterNet for sixteen months in 2010 through mid-
2011. The investigation was focused on customer disclosures, Form
ATS regulatory filings and customer information controls relating
to the pilot's trading activity, which included (a) crossing
against sell-side clients in POSIT and (b) violations of Company
policy and procedures by a former employee. These violations
principally involved information breaches for a period of several
months in 2010 regarding sell-side parent orders flowing into
ITG's algorithms and executions by all customers in non-POSIT
markets that were not otherwise available to ITG clients.
According to the terms of the settlement, the Company paid an
aggregate amount of $20.3 million, representing a civil penalty of
$18 million, disgorgement of approximately $2.1 million in trading
revenues and prejudgment interest of approximately $0.25 million.

In connection with the announcement of the SEC investigation, two
putative class action lawsuits were filed with respect to the
Company and certain of its current and former executives and have
since been consolidated into a single action captioned In re
Investment Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
material misrepresentations or omitted to disclose material facts
concerning, among other subjects, the matters that were the
subject of the SEC settlement regarding AlterNet, and the SEC
investigation that led to the SEC settlement. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages under the federal securities
laws.

ITG is an independent broker and financial technology firm.


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Oral Arguments Heard in Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court of
Appeals has heard oral argument in a class action appeal.

On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Mr. Reynolds, as defendants
(the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements related to the timing and
completion of the clinical study of the Company's Neuro-Spinal
Scaffold implant. The plaintiff seeks class certification for
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. On
April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with prejudice.

On May 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this
decision. A mandatory mediation conference was held on September
10, 2015. Following that conference, on October 5, 2015,
plaintiff/appellant filed his opening brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Company and the
individual defendants/appellees filed their answering brief on
November 5, 2015, and plaintiff/appellant filed his reply brief on
December 10, 2015. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
April 6, 2016.


IXIA: Insurer Funded $3.5 Million into Escrow Account
-----------------------------------------------------
IXIA said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2016, that the Company's insurer funded the payment of
$3.5 million into an escrow account established pursuant to the
Class Action Settlement Agreement.

Securities Class Action

On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul
Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against
us and certain of our current and former officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from
April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The initial complaint
alleged that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
recognition of revenues related to its warranty and software
maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and employment
history of the Company's former President and Chief Executive
Officer, Victor Alston. The complaint also alleged that the
defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including regarding the financial
statements and internal financial controls that were the subject
of the Company's April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior
period financial statements. The complaint further alleged that
the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls and issued
materially false and misleading financial statements for the
fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal
quarters ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011,
March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012, and September 30, 2012. The
complaint, which purported to assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, sought, on behalf of the purported class,
an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead
plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead
plaintiffs.

On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a first amended
complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants under
the same legal theories set forth in the initial complaint. The
first amended complaint also contained allegations that certain of
the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company's
stock during February, March, April and May of 2011 and during
February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to
inflate the Company's reported deferred revenues during the period
of February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2013.

On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6,
2014, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended
complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the
Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint.

On November 5, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a second amended
complaint. On January 6, 2015, the named defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. After briefing and a hearing
on April 13, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court
gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended
complaint.

On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order staying the class
action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a voluntary,
non-binding mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a
possible settlement of both the purported securities class action
and the shareholder derivative action discussed below. On July 23,
2015, the parties conducted the scheduled mediation with respect
to the purported class action but did not reach an agreement to
resolve and settle the litigation. However, settlement discussions
continued after the mediation session, and on August 14, 2015, the
parties agreed in principle to settle the purported securities
class action litigation.

On November 17, 2015, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015 relating to the
proposed settlement of the class action (the "Class Action
Settlement Agreement"). This Class Action Settlement Agreement
would resolve all of the claims asserted against the defendants in
the Class Action and was entered into subject to the Court's
preliminary and final approval. The Class Action Settlement
Agreement provides, among other terms, for a settlement payment of
$3.5 million, which the Company expects will be paid in full by
one of the Company's insurance carriers. The Class Action
Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing
or liability on the part of the Company or the individual
defendants, and upon final approval of the settlement by the
Court, provides for a dismissal of, and a release of all claims
asserted against the defendants in, the class action.

In February 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Class Action Settlement Agreement and scheduled a hearing for July
29, 2016 to consider final approval of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

In March 2016, the Company's insurer funded the payment of $3.5
million into an escrow account established pursuant to the Class
Action Settlement Agreement. The funds are being held in the
escrow account pending the Court's final approval of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement.

The Company has accrued a liability of $3.5 million related to
this matter as a component of Accrued expenses and other in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2016. The
Company has also recorded an offsetting receivable for $3.5
million in Prepaid expenses and other current assets in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2016, as
the Company deems recovery of the related insurance proceeds
probable.


JIMMY JOHN'S: Sued Over Highly Restrictive Non-Compete Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Bomkamp, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that the
Illinois Attorney General's office has filed a lawsuit against
Jimmy John's, alleging the company imposes "highly restrictive
non-compete agreements on its employees."

The attorney general's office alleges that all employees -- from
sandwich shop workers to delivery drivers -- are required to sign
a noncompete agreement as a condition of employment.  The
agreement bars them from working at another sub shop while being
employed at Jimmy John's and for two years after leaving the
company, the attorney general's office says.

Specifically, the office claims that the agreement specifies that
Jimmy John's employees cannot work at another company that derives
at least 10 percent of its sales from selling "submarine, hero-
type, deli-style, pita, and/or wrapped or rolled sandwiches"
within two miles of a Jimmy John's.  Jimmy John's, based in
Champaign, has about 270 locations in Illinois and 2,000
nationwide.

"By locking low-wage workers into their jobs and prohibiting them
from seeking better paying jobs elsewhere, the companies have no
reason to increase their wages or benefits," attorney general Lisa
Madigan said in a statement.

Ms. Madigan's office says it wants all noncompete agreements at
Jimmy John's to be rescinded and voided.  Jimmy John's said it had
stopped using such agreements in April 2015, but Ms. Madigan said
it had not implemented the change or communicated the shift to its
employees.  Jimmy John's has been under fire for use of noncompete
agreements for years, and the chain's practice has been the
subject of a failed class-action lawsuit.

Jimmy John's said it was "disappointed" to learn of the lawsuit.

"The attorney general's office approached us in September 2015 to
discuss concerns that it had about the use of non-compete
agreements in Jimmy John's stores, and we were nothing but
cooperative and transparent throughout the process," the company
said in a statement.  "Though the attorney general never indicated
to us that any worker had ever reported a concern about the
agreements, we made clear to the attorney general that we would
never enforce a non-compete agreement against any hourly employee
that might have signed one.

"We offered to have our CEO sign a declaration to that effect, and
pointed the attorney general to an April 2015 ruling dismissing a
federal claim against Jimmy John's over the use of non-compete
agreements, on the grounds that those agreements were not at risk
of being enforced.  We also told the attorney general that the
agreements had been removed from new-hire paperwork and taken out
of use long before their inquiry began.  When we learned that,
through an administrative error, certain company stores were using
outdated, pre-printed paperwork, we immediately corrected the
error and voluntarily informed the attorney general.  We remain
committed to resuming productive discussions with the attorney
general."


JUST FOR MEN: Faces Class Action Over Hair Dye Product Risks
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
the temptation to use hair dye to trim a few years off of your
appearance is universal.  So, in the fall of 2013, a Canadian man
from Ottawa, Ontario, purchased and began using a well-known Just
For Men hair dye product, marketed as Men H-45 Dark Brown Shampoo-
in Haircolor.

He used it four more times over the next two years, and then in
the fall of 2015, while shampooing the product into his hair in
the shower, he noticed something.  He had developed small scabs
all over his scalp.  By the end of the week, the scabs had grown
much larger, and within weeks, his whole head, including his
temples, the back of his neck and behind his ears, had developed
pustules, which were leaving fluid.  The fluid was so intense that
it was running down his back.

It got worse.  He developed eczema all over his chest, abdomen and
legs, and on December 28, 2015, he made a visit to the Medical
Clinic at the University of Ottawa.  Doctors said he was
experiencing an extreme allergic reaction and was prescribed
penicillin.

The problems continued and he eventually sought help from a local
dermatologist who prescribed a topical steroid to control the
allergic symptoms.  Itchy, uncomfortable and embarrassed by the
sores on his scalp and around his ears and neck, he stayed home
from work for two weeks.

He connected his reaction to Men H-45 Dark Brown Shampoo-in
Haircolor to the color-changing chemical in the product known as
Para-Phenylenediamine (PPD).  PPD is a chemical coal-tar dye that,
when combined with an oxidizing agent, such as hydrogen peroxide,
causes "colorant molecules" that change the hair's color
appearance.

In 2006, the medical journal Dermatitis (2006;17(2):53-55) named
PPD as the "contact allergen" of the year.  In 2011, the finding
was confirmed in another study published in Dermatitis (2011 Nov-
Dec;22(6):332-4).  It reported that the PPD is "an important
allergen; 5.0% of patients tested positive to PPD" when the patch
was tested at the Ottawa Patch Test Clinic.  The authors
identified "hair dyes as the main source of exposure."

The study reported that "one hundred thirty-four patients were
found to have a contact allergy to PPD; 75.4% were female, 24.6%
were male, 13.4% were hairdressers, 18.7% had a history of atopy,
90.3% were sensitized by hair dye, 2.2% were sensitized by henna
tattoos, and 7.5% were sensitized by other sources.  Positive
patch-test reactions to textile dyes were seen in 24.6%, 7.5%
reacted to benzocaine, 6.0% reacted to sulfa drugs, 1.5% reacted
to isopropyl-para-phenylenediamine, and 1.5% reacted to para-
aminobenzoic acid."

The man stopped using the H-45 Dark Brown Shampoo but still
suffers from dry, itchy skin, and believes that the Just For Men
Haircolor product he used, manufactured by Combe Inc. in the
United States, is responsible for his allergic reaction.  He is
now the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. He is represented by attorney
Jeff Orenstein, from the Consumer Law Group in Canada.

"I have had over 100 clients contact me about this," says
Mr. Orenstein.  "They have burns, scarring and other serious skin
reactions.  There is a very bad warning on the package telling
people to test it on their skin; the warning is not good enough.
The problem is particularly bad for men with dark skin, including
blacks, Asians, anyone with dark skin."

The statement of claim alleges "even if (Just For Men) is used as
directed, the Defendants failed to adequately warn against the
negative effects and risks associated with the product including,
but not necessarily limited to, long-term usage," writes
Mr. Orenstein.

Mr. Orenstein's filed claim goes on to allege that the test patch
instructions included on the package are inadequate and may
provide misleading or false results.

For its part, Combe Inc., in response to questions from LAS, says
the lawsuit has "no merit" and "Combe Inc. will vigorously fight
these allegations."  It went on to say "that hair color products
contain certain dyes to which a small segment of the population
may be allergic, although reactions are rare.  It is important
that consumers follow directions carefully when using any hair
color product.  Just For Men hair color products fully comply with
legal and safety requirements, including the ingredients used, and
the directions, labels and warnings that are included with the
hair color products."


KIA MOTORS: Faces "Wallis" Suit Over Defective GDI Engines
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Wallis and Jodie Peltier, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Kia Motors America, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-01033 (C.D. Cal., June 2,
2016), is brought on behalf of a class of current and former
owners and lessees of Kia Optima, Sportage, and Sorento vehicles,
with defective Theta 2.0-liter and 2.4-liter gasoline direct
injection engines (the "GDI Engines").

Kia Motors America, Inc. is an automobile design, manufacturing,
distribution, and service corporation doing business within the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
              mds@mccunewright.com
              jbk@mccunewright.com


LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Dismiss Suit v. ARCP et al Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in
December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP"),
certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's auditing firm,
and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000 common stock
offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note offerings. The
complaints have been consolidated. Ladenburg was named as a
defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 2014 Offering and
as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July 2013 offering of
$300,000 in convertible notes. The complaints allege, among other
things, that the offering materials were misleading based on
financial reporting of expenses, improperly-calculated AFFO
(adjusted funds from operations), and false and misleading
Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including statements as to ARCP's
internal controls, and that the underwriters are liable for
violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief. In December 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. Motions to dismiss that complaint are currently
pending. The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are
without merit and, if they are not dismissed, intends to
vigorously defend against them.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Remand Suit v. Miller Energy Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in
November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed in
state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of Miller
Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), as well as Miller's auditors
and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings in 2013
and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was one of
the underwriters of two of the offerings. The complaints allege,
among other things, that the offering materials were misleading
based on the purportedly overstated valuation of certain assets,
and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal
securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In December 2015
the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in January 2016, the
plaintiffs filed motions to remand, which are currently pending.
The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Dismiss Suit v. Plains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in
January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their
officers and directors. The amended complaint added Ladenburg and
other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that
in the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to
the purported class action. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters
of the October 2013 initial public offering. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on representations concerning the maintenance and
integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the underwriters are
liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as
other relief. Motions to dismiss are currently pending. The
Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.


LADENBURG THALMANN: To Dismiss Against Bankruptcy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that
Securities America was named in September 2015 as a defendant in
lawsuits brought by the bankruptcy trustee of a broker-dealer
(U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota) and a
putative class action by the shareholders of that broker-dealer
(U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). The lawsuits
allege that certain of the debtor broker-dealer's assets were
transferred to Securities America in June 2015 for inadequate
consideration. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, and other relief. The Company believes the
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
them.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Consolidated Action in Preliminary Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a consolidated class
action action is in a preliminary stage.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell
and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William
P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press
releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13,
2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which was
substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint sought, among other
relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012,
the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants'
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations
back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to
2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar
matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District
Court.

On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the
motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their
reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new
motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been
suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new
judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion
to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7,
2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed
their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the
matter has re-started.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22,
2016, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment as did co-
defendant Mr. Weidner. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
Company's motion for summary judgment on March 11, 2016. The
Company filed its reply in support of summary judgment on April 8,
2016. No hearing date for the summary judgment has been set.

This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management
has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter
or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Scheduling Order Entered in "Howard" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOWARD v. LIQUIDITY SERVICES, INC. et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-01183 (D.D.C.),  Judge Beryl A Howell entered a scheduling
order providing that:

     -- the parties shall exchange, by June 27, 2016, initial
        disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
        26(a)(1);

     -- document productions shall be substantially completed by
        November 1, 2016;

     -- requests for admissions shall be served by May 31, 2017;

     -- all fact discovery shall be completed by June 30, 2017;

     -- the parties shall identify expert witnesses on issues for
        which they have the burden of proof by July 14, 2017;

     -- reports offered by expert witnesses for all parties on
        issues for which they have the burden of proof shall be
        submitted by August 11, 2017;

     -- rebuttal expert reports shall be submitted by October 13,
        2017;

     -- reply expert reports shall be submitted by November 13,
        2017;

     -- all expert depositions shall be completed by December 22,
        2017.

     -- The plaintiffs shall, by September 2, 2016, file any
        motion for class certification;

     -- the defendants shall, by December 16, 2016, file any
        oppositions; and

     -- the plaintiffs shall, by February 17, 2017, any reply.

A dispositive motions schedule will be entered, if necessary,
following resolution of any motion for class certification. The
Court will not bifurcate class certification and merits discovery
in this case because, as discussed in more detail below, the (1)
issues of merits and class certification discovery are closely
intertwined and (2) bifurcation will cause unnecessary delay and
costs that may unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs.

First, a motion for class certification will inevitably involve
some of the same issues implicated by the merits of the claims,
including the determination of the class period, common class
claims and issues, and whether the class representatives can
adequately protect the interests of the class. Consequently,
bifurcation of discovery is impracticable. Second, bifurcation of
discovery related to class certification and to the merits of the
claims may only lead to disputes over the appropriate scope of
discovery, resulting in further delay and additional costs.

The Court is cognizant that the plaintiff's complaint has already
been pending, and discovery stayed, for nearly two years.
Therefore, any further delays in discovery be unfairly prejudicial
to the plaintiffs. Lastly, the plaintiffs have not made any
representation that they will not move forward with the case
should class certification be denied. Thus, staying merits
discovery pending adjudication of any motion for class
certification is unlikely to result in cost savings to the
defendants or save any judicial resources.

Liquidity Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Leonard Howard filed
on July 14, 2014, a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia against the
Company and its chief executive officer, former chief financial
officer, and former chief accounting officer, on behalf of
stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014.  The complaint alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the
Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and
operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its share
price, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.  On October 14,
2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Dep“t et Placement du Quebec
and the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund as co-lead
plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December
15, 2014, which alleges substantially similar claims but which
does not name the chief accounting officer as a defendant.

On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the
requisite particularity.  On March 31, 2016, the Court granted
that motion in part and denied it in part.  The Company had until
May 16, 2016, to answer the amended complaint.  The Company
believes the allegations in the amended complaint are without
merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any,
at this time.


LORILLARD TOBACCO: "DeRoo" Sues Over Cancer Due to Cigarettes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip DeRoo v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., RJ Reynolds Tobacco
Company, Reynolds American, Inc., Philip Morris USA, Inc., Garber
Bros., Inc., and Tedeschi Food Shops, Inc., Case No. 1684CV01733
(Mass. Commw, June 2, 2016), is an action for damages sustained by
the Plaintiff who developed lung cancer caused by the Defendants'
defective Kool, Marlboro, Winston and Newport brand
cigarettes and their negligent, misleading and fraudulent
marketing, distribution and sale of cigarettes.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, distributing,
promoting and selling cigarette products throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Walker Kelly, Esq.
      Paula S. Bliss, Esq.
      KELLEY BERNHEIM & DOLINSKY, LLC
      4 Court Street
      Plymouth, MA 02360
      Telephone: (617) 420-0715
      E-mail: wkelley@kbdattomeys.com
              pbliss@kbdattomeys.com

         - and -

      Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
      Steven B. Rotman, Esq.
      Kristen Ward Broz, Esq.
      HAUSFELD
      1700 K Street, NW Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      E-mail: rlewis@hausfeld.com
              srotman@hausfeld.com
              kward@hausfeld.com


LORILLARD TOBACCO: "Lamattina" Sues Over Cancer Due to Cigarettes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Lamattina v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., RJ Reynolds Tobacco
Company, Reynolds American, Inc., Philip Morris USA, Inc., Garber
Bros., Inc., and Tedeschi Food Shops, Inc., Case No. 1684CV01734
(Mass. Cmmw., June 2, 2016), is an action for damages sustained by
the Plaintiff, who developed lung cancer caused by the Defendants'
defective Kool, Marlboro, Winston and Newport brand
cigarettes and their negligent, misleading and fraudulent
marketing, distribution and sale of cigarettes.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, distributing,
promoting and selling cigarette products throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Walker Kelly, Esq.
      Paula S. Bliss, Esq.
      KELLEY BERNHEIM & DOLINSKY, LLC
      4 Court Street
      Plymouth, MA 02360
      Telephone: (617) 420-0715
      E-mail: wkelley@kbdattomeys.com
              pbliss@kbdattomeys.com

         - and -

      Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
      Steven B. Rotman, Esq.
      Kristen Ward Broz, Esq.
      HAUSFELD
      1700 K Street, NW Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      E-mail: rlewis@hausfeld.com
              srotman@hausfeld.com
              kward@hausfeld.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Renewed Motion to Approve Deal Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs in
the securities class action complaints have filed a renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement.

On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On April
21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit (Okla. Police
Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et
al., No. 3:15-cv-01797) was filed against the Company, certain of
the Company's current directors and former and now-former
officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial
firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock
offerings. On June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were
consolidated. On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in
the consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of
the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as
underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015 and a putative
subclass consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 6,
2013 public stock offering. The consolidated amended complaint
asserts claims on behalf of the putative class for (i) alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company's
current directors and former officers, (ii) alleged violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company's
current directors and former officers, and (iii) alleged
violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a
shareholder. The consolidated amended complaint also asserts
claims on behalf the subclass for (i) alleged violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, and certain
financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public
stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the
Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's current
directors and former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and
certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the
Company's public stock offerings, (iii) alleged violations of
Section 15 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the
Company's former officers, and a shareholder of the Company.

On December 10, 2015, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize
an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit, Thomas, et al. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor
Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01160-JST, pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Class Action Litigation"). On February 5, 2016,
the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, as well as the
stipulation and agreement of settlement and related exhibits. The
stipulation and agreement of settlement releases all claims
asserted against all defendants in the Class Action Litigation
except for Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. and does not release
claims asserted in the derivative actions Hemmingson, et al. v.
Elkins, et al., No. 1-15-CV-278614 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa
Clara Cnty.) and Bushansky v. Norby, et al., No. 1-15-CV-281284
(PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.) (the "Derivative
Actions"). The stipulation and agreement of settlement provides
for an aggregate settlement payment by the Company of $23.5
million, which includes all attorneys' fees, costs of
administration and plaintiffs' out-of-pocket expenses, lead
plaintiff compensatory awards and disbursements. The Company
expects the settlement will be fully funded by insurance proceeds.
The settlement includes the dismissal of all claims against the
Company and the named individuals in the Class Action Litigation
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.

On April 7, 2016, the court found (i) plaintiffs' representatives
satisfied Rule 23's requirements for certification of a putative
class for settlement purposes and (ii) the amount of the proposed
class action settlement, and the process by which the proposed
settlement was negotiated, to be fair and reasonable. The court,
however, denied, without prejudice, the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement due to certain identified deficiencies.
On April 13, 2016, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, which sought to cure the
deficiencies identified by the court. The settlement remains
subject to stockholder notice, court approval and other customary
conditions.

The Company has recorded the $23.5 million of the obligation as
accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets as of December
31, 2015 and as selling, general and administrative expenses in
the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2015. The Company has recorded $29.6 million of the
proceeds from the insurers as other receivables in the
consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as a
deduction of the selling, general and administrative expenses in
the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2015. The proceeds from the insurers of $29.6 million
were deposited into the Company's escrow account during the first
quarter of 2016. As a result, the Company reclassified the $29.6
million deposits recorded in other receivables into restricted
cash as of March 31, 2016.


MARCHEX INC: "Porter" Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------
Marchex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the "Porter" lawsuit
has been dismissed without prejudice after the Lead Plaintiff
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case.

On November 17, 2015, Steven Porter, a purported shareholder of
the Company, filed a securities class action against the Company
and certain officers of the Company, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws (the "Complaint"). Mr. Porter sought to
represent all people who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's Class B common stock during the period from March 19,
2014 to September 18, 2014, and sought unspecified damages. The
Complaint alleged that the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On April 1,
2016, Mr. Porter was appointed "Lead Plaintiff" in the action. On
April 22, 2016, the case was dismissed without prejudice after the
Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case.

Marchex is an advertising analytics company.


MATSU INC: Faces "Pu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Qing Pu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Matsu, Inc. and Jianfu Zhou, Case No. 1:16-cv-04093 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 2, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant located at
483 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Steven Samuel
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com


MDL 2084: AndroGel Suits v. AbbVie et al. in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that several pending
lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in February 2010
and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) and others are consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under the Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) Rules as In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084.
These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation
involving AndroGel was sham litigation and the patent litigation
settlement agreement and related agreements with three generic
companies violate federal and state antitrust laws and state
consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs
generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees. These cases include: (a) four individual
plaintiff lawsuits; (b) six purported class actions; and (c)
Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. Following the
district court's dismissal of all plaintiffs' claims, appellate
proceedings led to the reinstatement of the claims regarding the
patent litigation settlement, which are proceeding in discovery in
the district court.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


MDL 2460: Niaspan Suits v. AbbVie Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------
AbbVie, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that lawsuits are pending
against AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent
litigation settlement involving Niaspan entered into between Kos
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott in 2006 and
presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates
federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive
trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally
seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees. The lawsuits consist of four individual plaintiff lawsuits
and two consolidated purported class actions: one brought by three
named direct purchasers of Niaspan and the other brought by ten
named end-payor purchasers of Niaspan. The cases are consolidated
for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the MDL Rules as In re:
Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460. The office of the
Attorney General of the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with a
Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking documents that
AbbVie produced in this lawsuit.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


MDL 2545: 3,400 Testosterone Product Claims vs. AbbVie Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that product liability
cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie
and other manufacturers of TRTs did not adequately warn about
risks of certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and
blood clots. Approximately 3,400 claims are consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re:
Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2545. Approximately 185 claims are pending in various
state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


MDL 2566: Discovery in TelexFree Litigation Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, 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 all discovery in
the TelexFree securities class action litigation have been stayed
pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings against
certain former TelexFree principals.

ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been
named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals. Telexfree is a former merchant customer of ProPay.
With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper
activities of Telexfree. Telexfree filed for bankruptcy protection
in Nevada. The bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently transferred
to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere,
et al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions").

On October 21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred and consolidated the Actions before the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "Consolidated Action").  The case is, In Re: Telexfree
Securities Litigation MDL No. 2566.

Following the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's October
21, 2014 order, four additional cases arising from the alleged
TelexFree scheme were transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings, including (i) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et
al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080); (ii) Magalhaes
v. TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (iii)
Griffith v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); Abelgadir
v. Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.) In addition, on
September 23, 2015, a putative class action relating to TelexFree
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, styled Rita Dos Santos, Putative Class Representatives
and those Similarly Situated v. TelexElectric, LLLP et al., 2:15-
cv-01906-NVW (the "Arizona Action"). The Arizona Action makes
claims similar to those alleged in the consolidated action pending
before the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

On September 29, 2015, a group of certain defendants to the
Consolidated Action, including ProPay, filed a "tag along" notice
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, asking that
the Arizona Action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts
where it can be consolidated or coordinated with the Consolidated
Action. On October 20, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the Arizona Action to the District of
Massachusetts.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the putative class
of plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. On March 31, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain
TelexFree "memberships" and suffered a "net loss" between January
1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. The Consolidated Complaint supersedes
the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, and
alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by
TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of
providing payment processing services to TelexFree. On April 30,
2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint
(the "Second Amended Complaint"), which amends and supersedes the
Consolidated Complaint. Like the Consolidated Complaint, the
Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that ProPay aided and
abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and that ProPay was
unjustly enriched in the course of providing payment processing
services to TelexFree.

Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015. Briefing on those motions
closed on October 16, 2015. The court held a hearing on the
motions to dismiss on November 2, 2015. At present, pursuant to a
court order, all discovery in the action is stayed pending the
resolution of parallel criminal proceedings against certain former
principals of TelexFree, Inc.


MEDPARTNERS: AIG, CVS Settles Class Action for $310 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that it happens all
the time in securities class actions: Plaintiffs' lawyers and
fraud defendants agree to settlements based on the size of the
company's insurance policy for directors and officers.  If a
company carries, say, a $50 million D&O insurance policy, the
class is better off settling for $50 million than allowing the
insurance money to be paid out to defense lawyers -- especially if
the company claims it's on the brink of bankruptcy.

But what if the company is lying about how much D&O insurance it
has?

In April, AIG and CVS Caremark agree to pay a combined $310
million ($280 million for AIG and $80 million from CVS) to settle
a long-running class action claiming that way back in 1999, when a
CVS predecessor company was facing a potentially ruinous
shareholder fraud case, they deceived plaintiffs' lawyers about
the company's insurance coverage.  Specifically, the Alabama state
court class action alleged that MedPartners -- which later merged
with Caremark and then CVS -- and AIG did not tell class counsel
in the 1999 securities case that MedPartners had unlimited fraud
insurance under a policy it bought from an AIG affiliate just as
shareholder litigation was brewing.

Instead, according to allegations in the just-settled case, AIG
and MedPartners represented that the company carried only $50
million in coverage, persuading plaintiffs' lawyers to accept $56
million to settle the shareholder fraud suit in 1999.  Lawyers for
AIG and MedPartners supposedly stood by silently when shareholder
counsel told the judge in 1999 that they took the deal because it
was all the company could afford -- even though, according to
plaintiffs in the subsequent suit, AIG and MedPartners knew full
well that the company could actually cover the $750 million
investors claimed in damages.

AIG and CVS, of course, had a different view of the facts.
According to their filings, MedPartners disclosed in a 1998 press
release that it had taken out insurance from an AIG affiliate.  If
plaintiffs' lawyers in the securities case didn't understand the
press release, AIG and CVS said, that's their own fault: According
to the defendants, class counsel in the 1999 case were rushing to
finalize the MedPartners settlement and secure $18 million in fees
before rival plaintiffs' lawyers could grab control of the case.

This story, which was first reported by Kevin LaCroix at D&O
Diary, involves some big names.  The plaintiffs' lawyers who were
supposedly hoodwinked by MedPartners and AIG in the 1999
settlement include lead class negotiator William Lerach, then at
Milberg Weiss, and prominent Arkansas trial lawyer Gene Cauley.
Both of them were later sentenced to prison for professional
misconduct (albeit unrelated to this case).  MedPartners' lawyer
in the 1999 securities case was a Jones Day partner supposedly
hired at AIG's behest. (He did not respond to my email request for
comment.) There's even a cameo role for Richard Scrushy, the
disgraced onetime chairman of HealthSouth and one of the biggest
MedPartners shareholders.

Securities litigation mavens will already have noticed that the
original investor case against MedPartners took place during an
unusual interlude in shareholder class action history, after
Congress tightened standards for securities class actions in
federal court but before lawmakers passed the law that mostly
precludes investors from bringing class actions in state court.
After a failed 1998 merger that exposed flaws in MedPartners'
fast-growth strategy, the company faced class actions in both
state and federal forums.  In October of 1998, it paid an AIG unit
$22.5 million for an excess coverage policy with no limits on the
amount AIG would pay out to shareholders in the fraud case.

The company put out a very carefully worded press release about
the new insurance in December.  AIG also became an active player
in the securities litigation, which it obviously wanted to resolve
without paying anything.  An AIG lawyer who has since died later
testified in a related arbitration over MedPartners coverage that
the insurer's goal was to keep information about the new insurance
under wraps. "Our primary concern was that if it had become widely
known or even if it had become known to any more people than had
to know about it, that ultimately would get to the plaintiffs," he
said.  "And if the plaintiffs were to suddenly realize that there
was this insurance above the $50 million that they were previously
aware of, that was going to cause them to drive the settlement
value to a much higher level than they would otherwise .  We were
not going to let them know that there was this insurance on top.
And so we kept it within as tight a group as we possibly could for
fear that somehow it would come to the plaintiffs' attention."

Shareholder lawyers in a MedPartners case in federal court did
figure out that something was up -- but by then, plaintiffs'
lawyers in the Alabama state court securities litigation had
already agreed to settle for $56 million.  In February 1999,
Steven Toll of the firm now known as Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
and Lee Squitieri, now of Squitieri & Fearon, wrote to plaintiffs'
lawyers in the state court class action in Alabama, asking why
they believed $56 million was adequate in light of the AIG
coverage and demanding to see the relevant insurance policies.
Apparently, the state court plaintiffs' lawyers did not
specifically respond to the demands of their counterparts in
federal court.

In May 1999, Alabama state court judge William Wynn held a
fairness hearing on the proposed $56 million settlement.
Shareholder lawyers told Judge Wynn that they had settled for "all
the insurance coverage plus some" from a company "in financial
extremis."  Defense counsel, including John Newman of Jones Day,
an AIG preferred counsel, did not inform the court that, in fact,
MedPartners had far more coverage thanks to its unlimited AIG
policy. (Newman did not respond to a detailed email request for
comment.)

The Alabama law firm Hare Wynn Newell & Newton was one of the
plaintiffs' firms that split the fee award in the 1999 settlement.
A couple of years later, when the firm was representing a former
MedPartners executive in a suit seeking reimbursement of his
defense costs, the company produced documents disclosing the terms
of the AIG insurance policy. According to Hare Wynn partner John
Haley, that disclosure was the first time he realized shareholders
might have gotten much more in the 1999 case.

"I went apoplectic," Mr. Haley said.  "I'm not sure I could repeat
exactly how I felt."

The $310 million settlement took more than 10 years to wrest from
AIG and CVS, including a trip to the Alabama Supreme Court on the
question of whether the previous certification of a class of
MedPartners shareholders covered investors' additional claims of
an insurance coverup.  Mr. Haley said some lawyers and plaintiffs
in the case have died in the nearly 20 years since the MedPartners
litigation began, but that plaintiffs' lawyers in the insurance
case believe they will be able to track down most of the investors
from the original shareholder class.

AIG was represented in the coverup case by Cahill Gordon &
Reindel.  Cahill partner Edward Krugman -- ekrugman@cahill.com --
declined to comment.  CVS counsel Robert Thornton of King &
Spalding did not respond to a phone message.


METLIFE INC: MLIC's Motion to Dismiss "Martin" Case Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has granted
MLIC's motion to dismiss the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that
MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. On
April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Newman" Action
----------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the the Company
intends to defend against the case, Newman v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
based on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-
term care insurance policies with one of two policy features.
Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of: (i) herself and all
persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65 feature
and whose premium rates were increased after age 65; and/or (ii)
all persons who purchased a 5% Automatic Compound Inflation
Protection Rider and whose premiums paid for the rider were
increased. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be increased
for these class members and/or that marketing material with
respect to these two features was misleading as to MLIC's right to
increase premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages as well as recessionary and
injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously.


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Pincon and Chung Actions Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and
appointed counsel in the Pincon action as lead counsel.

On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon
Chung v. Newport Corp., et al, Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders of Newport Corporation ("Newport")
for claims related to the February 22, 2016 Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") between the Company, Newport and
PSI Equipment, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, which was merged with Newport on April
29, 2016 and is the surviving corporation of such merger ("Merger
Sub"). The complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport,
Merger Sub, and certain current and former members of Newport's
former board of directors. The complaint alleges that the named
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's
stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and
unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration,
and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices. The complaint
also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin
or rescind the Merger Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief. On March
25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an amended
complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that the
definitive proxy statement filed by Newport on March 29, 2016 (the
"Proxy") omitted material information. The amended complaint also
names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and then-
current members of Newport's board of directors.

Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint
captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-
16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of Newport's stockholders
for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as
defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub and the members of
Newport's former board of directors. It alleges that the named
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's
stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and
unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration,
by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting
material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleges
that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind
the Merger Agreement, and an award of attorneys' and other fees
and costs, among other relief.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in
the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and scheduled a
hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a preliminary
injunction for April 25, 2016. On April 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed
a motion to vacate the hearing on their anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction and notified the Court that they did not
presently intend to file a motion for a preliminary injunction
regarding the Merger Agreement. On April 22, 2016, the Court
vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the complaints
have no merit and the Company, Newport, Merger Sub and the named
directors intend to defend vigorously against these claims.


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Transfer and Dismiss Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a motion to
transfer and a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit are
pending before the magistrate and subject to review by the court.

The Company said, "On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class
action suit against the Company and Sandoz Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on
behalf of certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic enoxaparin
sodium injection. The complaint alleges that, in connection with
filing the September 2011 patent infringement suit against
Amphastar and Actavis, the Company and Sandoz Inc. sought to
prevent Amphastar from selling generic enoxaparin sodium injection
and thereby exclude competition for generic enoxaparin sodium
injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages
and fees.

"In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz Inc. filed a motion to
dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Hearings on the
motions were held in February 2016 on the motion to transfer and
in April 2016 on the motion to dismiss, before a United States
magistrate.  These motions are pending before the magistrate and
subject to review by the court. While the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without
merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
litigation."

Momenta is a biotechnology company focused on developing generic
versions of complex drugs, biosimilars and novel therapeutics for
oncology and autoimmune disease.


MULTI-FINELINE: Class Suit Over DSBJ Merger in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Fineline Electronix, Inc. on February 4, 2016, entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Suzhou Dongshan Precision Manufacturing Co., Ltd., a company
organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China
("DSBJ"), and Dragon Electronix Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware
corporation and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of DSBJ ("Merger
Sub"), under which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), with the Company continuing after the
Merger as the surviving corporation and indirect subsidiary of
DSBJ. The Merger Agreement has been unanimously approved by the
Company's Board of Directors.

Multi-Fineline Electronix, 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 April 29,
2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder
in the United States District Court in the Central District of
California challenging the proposed Merger with DSBJ. The lawsuit
alleges that the individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors (the "MFLEX Board") breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger
transaction for inadequate consideration and through an allegedly
flawed sales process, and that the defendant companies, MFLEX,
DSBJ and Merger Sub, aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The
plaintiff in the action seeks, among other things, an order
enjoining the Merger and, in the event the merger is completed,
rescission and/or damages as a result of the alleged violations of
law, as well as fees and costs. Although it is not possible to
predict the outcome of this litigation matter with certainty,
MFLEX and the MFLEX Board believe that the claims asserted in this
lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
these claims. In view of our indemnification obligation to our
directors, we are unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that
could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an
unfavorable outcome were to occur in these cases, it is possible
that the impact could be material to our results of operations in
the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and
estimable."

The case is, Cynthia Lehn, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Multi-Fineline Electronix,
Inc., Philippe Lemaitre, Reza Meshgin, Linda Y.C. Lim, PH.D.,
James M. McCluney, Donald K. Schwanz, Roy Chee Keong Tan, Sam Yau,
Suzhou Dongshan Precision Manufacturing Co., LTD. and Dragon
Electronix Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-000805
(C.D. Cal., April 29, 2016), and the Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Lance Greene, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: (877) 534-2590
     Fax: (310) 247-0160
     Email: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

          - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171

There's a hearing June 20, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Cormac
J. Carney to consider an Application for Leave of Shannon Hopkins
to Appear for Pro Hac Vice.

On May 31, Judge Carney granted Non-Resident Attorney Sebastiano
Tornatore's Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of the
plaintiff.


MURRAY GOULBURN: Suit Mulled Over Farmgate Milk Price Clawback
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simone Smith, writing for The Weekly Times, reports that cleaning
up corporate governance in Australia's largest dairy processor is
in the hands of shareholders, according to lawyers.

But opinion is divided about whether unit holders and shareholders
should take legal action against Murray Goulburn.

Lawyer Shahriar Mofakhami, engaged to advise the United
Dairyfarmers of Victoria on the milk crisis, said "any alteration
to corporate governance practices at MG is in the hands of the
board . . . elected by shareholders who are MG suppliers".

"But litigation might not be in the best interest of
supplier/shareholders, in instilling better corporate governance
and transparency practices."

Mr. Mofakhami said MG could alter the distribution paid to unit
holders due to abnormal circumstances.  He asked, at a recent
Leongatha MG supplier meeting, if MG had investigated triggering
the abnormal circumstances to reduce distributions to the unit
holders.

He was told MG had legal advice that it could not change the
profit sharing mechanism (what determines the farmgate milk price,
dividend and distributions).  An MG spokesman told The Weekly
Times that its product disclosure statement described the
circumstances in which a departure from the profit sharing
mechanism may occur.

"MG's view was the circumstances of the revised April 2016
forecast . . . did not meet the criteria for a departure from the
agreed profit sharing mechanism," he said.

The MG spokesman also said most of MG's declared dividends were
payable to shareholder/suppliers and this supported the MG board's
view that maintaining the profit sharing mechanism was in the best
interests of all stakeholders.

"In addition, the board's view was the majority of shareholders
were not supportive of a departure from the profit sharing
mechanism," he said.

When asked about farmer suppliers seeking damages from MG,
Mr. Mofakhami said the reality was that MG has suffered the loss.

"Although farmers are suffering the economic impact of MG's loss
they have not suffered a 'loss' from a legal perspective," he
said.

"Based on the way that MG has structured the MSSP (milk supply
support package), it is not an obligation on suppliers rather it
is an additional charge on suppliers who wish to continue doing
business with MG."

He said the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission could
seek compensation and damages for those impacted.

Mr. Mofakhami said if the responsible entity was hit with any
fines, MG would pay it under an indemnity arrangement between MG
and the responsible entity.  He said directors' insurance could
step-in but it would depend on the cover and circumstances of the
claim.

Either scenario could increase the cost to the company, which
would add to the existing loss suffered by the company, he said.

The same case could be made for the class action on behalf of the
MG unit holders.

The Weekly Times asked MG where the money would come from if it
faced fines or a class action and any impact on suppliers

A spokesman said "MG has notified insurers of the respective
claims".

The MG spokesman said: "There will be a number of costs expected
from the class action and regulatory investigations which will
need to be covered by MG.  Significant executive time will
generally need to be spent on these types of matters."

However, Warrnambool's Dwyer Robinson Lawyers solicitor
Edward Mahony -- ejm@dwyerrobinson.com.au -- said MG suppliers
were "suppressing their power if they remain complacent about the
recent farm milk gate price clawback".

"Farmers' rights in the (cooperative) structure are substantial
and should be exercised to ensure the board's decision is not
tolerated now or in the future," he said.

"The clawback has not taken account of the message relayed by MG
in the 2015 restructure that 'Murray Goulburn is pursuing an
optimum capital structure that will see 100 per cent supplier
control of the co-operative maintained'."

Mr. Mahony is not involved in any existing class action and his
family are dairy farmers but do not supply MG.

He dismissed the idea that shareholders or unit holders would be
"going after their own" with a class action.

Rather, he said these farmers would be "ensuring that they remain
at the heart of the Murray Goulburn business."

Mr. Mahony, quoting the Federal Court, said: "shareholder class
actions hold corporations and their officers to account above and
beyond any penalties imposed in the regulatory regimes and so
contribute to a culture of good corporate governance."

He said if the action were brought on behalf of the unit- holding
dairy farmers, "it would assist in their short-term financial gain
by way of potential injunction or compensation for the clawback;
which may be passed through to professional indemnity insurers."

Adley Burstyner principal David Burstyner --
dburstyner@adleyburstyner.com.au -- who is investigating the
possibility of a class action, said farmers want to make sure the
farmgate milk price claw back does not happen again.


NAVY FEDERAL: Judge Denies Approval of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A recent denial of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act settlement
between Navy Federal Credit Union and a group of consumers may
signal the increased scrutiny placed on class actions by federal
judges, a class action attorney told Bloomberg BNA May 27.

"Given the high volume of TCPA class action filings" and
"exorbitant eight figure settlements," federal courts are becoming
skeptical of all "facets of the deal including the manner of
notice," David Almedia, partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP in Chicago, said.

Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denied the motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement May 26 due to "a notable
deficiency as to the scope of the proposed release" of claims
(Munday v. Navy Federal Credit Union, C.D. Cal., No. 15-cv-01629,
order denying proposed settlement 5/26/16).

Here, the court said that the release language was overly broad
and wasn't limited to the plaintiff's claims in the complaint.

"The typical release language in a class action settlement tracks
the allegations in the complaint" and "only extends to claims
(alleged or which could have been alleged) arising out of the
facts at issue," Ms. Almeida said.

In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that Navy Federal Credit
Union used an automated telephone dialing system to place calls to
their mobile phones without express consent in violation of the
TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227.  Subsequently, the parties filed a
notice of preliminary settlement Mar. 25 for $2.75 million.

Broad Release Notice

Rather than evaluating the settlement "as a whole," Judge Staton
denied the settlement "outright on the basis of the release
alone," Ms. Almeida said.

In this case, the release included a "without limitation clause"
that made the notice "unclear whether there is any real limitation
on the release of claims of any and every kind against the
defendant," the court said.

Lawyers need to pay attention to detail when drafting settlements
in class cases.  Ms. Almeida said that the release in this case
was "simply inartfully drafted."

This decision is "a good example of federal judges taking a more
detailed and in depth review of class action settlements," he
said.

Lemberg Law LLC represents the named plaintiff.  Hunton and
Williams LLP represents Navy Federal Credit Union.


NEST: Sued for Misleading Buyers on Thermostat Energy Savings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for siliconbeat, reports that a lawsuit
against Google's troubled sister company Nest is revolving around
one of the oldest advertising gambits in the book: claims of
savings "up to" an enticing amount.  If the savings fall short of
the promised maximum, was the advertising deceptive?

Nest's own data showed that advertised energy savings from its
sleek, pricey thermostat were overblown, plaintiffs told Northern
California U.S. District Court in San Jose on June 3.

"Nest claimed that the $250 smartphone-controlled thermostats
saved about $175 per year, but scrutiny of actual bills showed
savings of up to 12 percent on heating and 15 percent on cooling,
or $145 a year at most," lead plaintiff Justin Darisse told court,
according to reporting by Law360.

Nest has been beset with tumult in recent weeks.  On June 3, the
firm announced its CEO Tony Fadell, the subject of public
complaints from within the company about his management style, was
leaving to work for parent company Alphabet.  On May 18, a former
Nest employee filed a U.S. labor board complaint claiming to have
been fired for posting employees' complaints about Fadell on
Facebook.  The complaint also alleges that Nest and Google
conducted illegal surveillance of employees via their electronic
devices, to prevent workers from speaking out about workplace
conditions.

In the advertising-claims lawsuit, plaintiffs want class-action
status, and seek $350 million in damages for all buyers of first
and second generation Nest thermostats, court filings show. The
suit calls Nest's thermostat "a fancy, overpriced gadget" that
"fails at even the most basic function of a thermostat: accurately
gauging and controlling temperature."

But the quality of the device does not appear to be the focus of
the lawsuit. At issue are Nest's reputed advertising claims, which
plaintiffs contend promised 20 percent savings on energy bills.
"Depositions of Nest employees have shown that its website and
advertising were 'undeniably saturated with the 20 percent
claim,'" Darisse said in a filing, according to Law360.

In an April filing obtained by SiliconBeat, Nest argued that
Darisse had rushed into court after just three months with the
thermostat, based only on a "feeling" the device hadn't delivered
the savings he says he believed he'd been promised. The company
also noted in the filing that Darisse's proposed lead lawyer for
the class action is his brother-in-law.

Nest contends that the claims made in some of its advertising
referred to "potential savings." The company said its advertising
described the thermostat as "capable of" saving customers up to 20
percent in heating and cooling costs and an average of $173 per
year.

"There were at least nine versions of the 20 percent claim and
three versions of the $173 per year claim on Nest's website during
the class period, some of which were followed by a disclaimer that
individual savings levels varied," Nest's filing said.

Nest denied that a later set of claims it issued touting an
average of 10 percent to 15 percent savings on heating and
cooling, and average savings of $131 to $145 per year, showed it
had made false and misleading claims, because both sets of numbers
are "well supported," the filing said. A U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency finding that a correctly programmed thermostat
can bring savings up to 20 percent still stands, the firm said.

Nest said its analysis of select user data, plus two independent
studies, showed an average savings of 10 percent to 12 percent on
heating and 15 percent on cooling, and the company estimates
average savings at $131 to $145 per year. Then the firm goes back
to its main argument, around "potential" savings:

"The studies do not change the fact that (Nest thermostat) users
can and do save 20 percent or more, and save on average 10 percent
to 15 percent," the filing said.

Darisse's wife bought the thermostat via Amazon in November 2013,
and he filed the lawsuit without bothering to verify whether or
not he'd saved money, Nest's filing said. The company said it
analyzed energy bills Darisse had submitted and found he'd saved
"considerably more than 20 percent."

Nest argues further that Darisse has no standing to represent the
class of Nest buyers because his wife bought the thermostat and he
is therefore not a "purchaser."

A class-certification hearing is scheduled for June 23, according
to Law360.


NEW YORK: Convictions Made Amid Rikers Island Jail Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrit Kennedy, writing for NPR, reports that a New York jury has
found five corrections officers guilty of felony charges for
brutally beating an inmate in 2012 at the notorious Rikers Island
jail complex.

The five men were found guilty on all counts, including the most
serious charge of attempted gang assault against inmate Jahmal
Lightfoot.  The beating left Lightfoot "with fractured eye sockets
and a broken nose," Reuters reported.

The verdict at the State Supreme Court in the Bronx is seen as a
"major victory for law enforcement officials who have struggled to
successfully prosecute correction officers accused of brutality,"
The New York Times reported.  Such cases have proved difficult to
prosecute in the past due to "negative perceptions and credibility
problems with victims who are in jails and prisons."

"The convictions make a strong statement: Savagely beating an
inmate will not be tolerated in the city's jails," Mark G. Peters,
commissioner of the city's Investigation Department, told the
newspaper.

Likewise, Jonathan S. Abady, a lawyer who has been involved in
other brutality cases from Rikers, told the Times: "Unfortunately,
successful prosecutions of correction officers for misconduct and
abuse of prisoners are rare."

Among those convicted is former Assistant Chief for Security
Eliseo Perez, who retired from that position in 2013, according to
The Associated Press.  A sixth officer was accused of assisting in
covering up the attack but was found not guilty, the wire service
reported.

The beating occurred during a contraband search, when Lightfoot
"locked eyes with Perez," the AP reported.  This is how
prosecutors describe the attack, according to the wire service:

"Angered by the stare-down, Mr. Perez shouted out to a captain and
five officers that Lightfoot 'thinks he's tough' and should be
beaten, prosecutors said.

"Authorities said the guards led Lightfoot into a small cell and
then pummeled him so severely he had fractured eye sockets, a
broken nose and bruises that left his eyes swollen shut.
Prosecutors also alleged the officers, in an effort to explain
Lightfoot's injuries, filed false reports claiming Lightfoot had
slashed an officer with a sharpened piece of metal."

Lawyers defending the corrections officers had argued that
Lightfoot was lying and the officers were doing their jobs,
Reuters reported.  "This is the most upsetting verdict I have ever
seen in 36 years of criminal defense practice,"
Robert Feldman, who defended Mr. Perez in the trial, told the wire
service.

According to Human Rights Watch, "staff brutality has been
persistent for decades" at Rikers, which holds more than 10,000
inmates.  Court documents from a separate class action lawsuit
said 43.7 percent of male inmates ages 16, 17, and 18 in custody
as of October 2012 "have been subjected to use of force by staff
on at least one occasion."

These convictions come amid an uptick in prosecutions of
corrections officers, the Times reported:

"In the past four years, in addition to the Lightfoot case, the
Bronx district attorney's office has prosecuted 26 other
correction officers in cases of excessive force against inmates or
suspected cover-ups.  Eleven of them still have open cases. Of the
remaining 15 officers, nine were convicted and six were acquitted,
according to prosecutors."

Following the June 7 verdict, Lightfoot said "justice got served,"
according to the Times.  "They beat me almost to death," he
continued, "and I hope that nobody has to go through that."

The convicted officers are reportedly scheduled to be sentenced in
September.  The AP quotes City Correction Commissioner
Joseph Ponte as saying that officers guilty of felonies would be
fired and that he had "zero tolerance for any illegal behavior on
the part of staff."


PENN WEST: June 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE PENN WEST PETROLEUM LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Master File No. 14-cv-6046-JGK

NOTICE OF NEW DATE FOR SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

TO:   All persons or entities who or which (i) purchased or
otherwise acquired Penn West Petroleum Ltd. ("Penn West") common
stock or trust units on an open market located within the United
States, including but not limited to the New York Stock Exchange
("NYSE") or another domestic exchange, or (ii) purchased or
otherwise acquired Penn West call options, or sold or wrote Penn
West put options, on an open market located within the United
States, including but not limited to the NYSE or another domestic
exchange, from February 18, 2010 through July 29, 2014, inclusive
(the "Settlement Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT.

As previously announced, Lead Plaintiffs in the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") have reached a proposed settlement of
the Action for Can$26,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), which
equated to US$19,759,282 on the day it was deposited into an
escrow account.  If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve
all claims in the Action.

The Court had previously scheduled a hearing on July 19, 2016 at
4:30 p.m., before the Honorable John G. Koeltl in Courtroom 12B of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
St., New York, NY 10007-1312, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
February 12, 2016 ("Stipulation") and in the Notice should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Co-Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. THE DATE
OF THE HEARING HAS CHANGED, AND IT HAS NOW BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR
JUNE 28, 2016 AT 4:30 P.M.  The location of the hearing remains
the same.  All remaining dates, including the claims filing
deadline, remain the same.  If you are planning on attending the
Settlement Fairness Hearing, you should confirm the date and time
with Co-Lead Counsel.

Additional information concerning the Settlement and the relevant
dates may be found on the settlement website,
www.PennWestUSSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you have not yet received the Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing;
and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), which more completely
describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder, and Claim
Form, you may obtain copies of these documents, as well as a copy
of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains
definitions for the defined terms used in this notice) by
contacting the Claims Administrator at Penn West U.S. Securities
Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 3967, Portland, OR 97208-3967,
(877) 835-0545, or Info@PennWestUSSecuritiesLitigation.com
Copies of the Notice, Claim Form and Stipulation can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.PennWestUSSecuritiesLitigation.com

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Penn West,
any other Defendant, or their counsel, regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Co-Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
(800) 380-8496

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
(888) 773-9224

Please note that there is a separate settlement for persons who
acquired the securities of Penn West on the Toronto Stock
Exchange, on an alternative trading market in Canada, or otherwise
in Canada from March 17, 2011 through July 29, 2014, inclusive,
and/or July 30, 2014 through September 18, 2014, inclusive, and
held some or all of those securities at the close of trading on
July 29, 2014 or September 18, 2014 (the "Canadian Class").  This
notice only pertains to the Settlement Class (defined above).  If
you are a member of the Canadian Class, you can learn more about
your rights and options at the website dedicated to the Canadian
cases: www.PennWestCanadianClassAction.com

By Order of the Court


PERFECT L G: "Savala" Suit in Va. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Savala, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Perfect L G Cleaning Corp and Luis Grados, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00328-REP (D. Va., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a commercial cleaning services company
located at 11501 Tidewater Trail, Fredericksburg, VA 22408.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
      8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


PRICELINE GROUP: "Laquer" Suit Transferred to Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Richard Laquer, individually,
and as class of representative of all similarly situated citizens
who transacted business with The Priceline Group Inc. v. Priceline
Group, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00015, was transferred from the
District of Oklahoma Western to the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:16-cv-00860-JBA to the proceeding.

Priceline Group, Inc. is a provider of online travel & related
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren M. Tawwater, Esq.
      Larry A. Tawwater, Esq.
      THE TAWWATER LAW FIRM PLLC
      One Tsquared Place
      14001 Quail Springs Parkway
      Oklahoma City, OK 73134
      Telephone: (405) 607-1400
      Facsimile: (405) 607-1450
      E-mail: dtaw@tawlaw.com
              lat@tawlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Anne Marie Seibel, Esq.
      Michael R. Pennington, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      1600 Division St., Suite 700
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Telephone: (205) 521-8386
      Facsimile: (205) 488-6386
      E-mail: aseibel@babc.com
              mpennington@babc.com

         - and -

      Jay P. Walters, Esq.
      John M. Krattiger, Esq.
      Sidney G. Dunagan, Esq.
      GABLE AND GOTWALS
      211 N. Robinson Ave., 15th Fl.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 235-5500
      Facsimile: (405) 235-2875
      E-mail: jwalters@gablelaw.com
              jkrattiger@gablelaw.com
              sdunagan@gablelaw.com


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Plaintiff Allowed to File 2nd Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court
allowed the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint on or
before May 7, 2016.

On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v.
Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL.  The complaint names Richard A.
Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren S. Rustand, Christopher
Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants") and Coliseum Capital
Management, LLC ("Coliseum Capital Management") as defendants, and
the Company as a nominal defendant.  The complaint purported to
allege that the dividend rate increase term originally in the
Company's outstanding convertible preferred stock was an
impermissibly coercive measure that impaired the voting rights of
the Company's stockholders in connection with the vote on the
removal of certain voting and conversion caps previously
applicable to the preferred stock (the "Caps"), that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the dividend rate increase term and attempting to coerce the
stockholder vote relating to the Company's preferred stock, and
that the Company failed to disclose all material information
necessary to allow the Company's stockholders to cast an informed
vote on the Caps. The complaint also purported to assert
derivative claims alleging that the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company by entering into the
subordinated note and Standby Purchase Agreement with Coliseum
Capital Management, and granting Coliseum Capital Management
certain stock options.  The complaint further alleged that
Coliseum Capital Management aided and abetted the Individual
Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties.  The complaint
sought, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the
stockholder vote relating to the dividend rate increase, corporate
governance reforms, unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 31, 2015, after arm's length negotiations, the parties
reached an agreement in principle and executed a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement of claims
concerning the dividend rate increase term and stockholder vote
and related disclosure. The MOU stated that the defendants had
entered into the partial settlement of the litigation solely to
eliminate the distraction, burden, expense, and potential delay of
further litigation involving claims that have been settled.
Pursuant to the partial settlement, the Company agreed to
supplement the disclosures in its definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A ("Definitive Proxy Statement"), Coliseum Capital
Management and certain of its affiliates and the Company entered
into an amendment to that certain Series A Preferred Stock
Exchange Agreement, by and among Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P.,
Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Coliseum Capital Co-Invest,
L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, and The Providence Service
Corporation dated as of February 11, 2015 described in the
Definitive Proxy Statement, and the Board of Directors of the
Company agreed to adopt a policy related to the Board's
determination each quarter as to whether the Company should pay
cash dividends or allow dividends to be paid in the form of PIK
dividends on the preferred stock, as further described in the
supplemental proxy disclosures.

On September 2, 2015, Providence issued supplemental disclosures
through a supplement to the proxy statement on Schedule 14A. On
September 16, 2015, Providence stockholders approved the removal
of the Caps. At a hearing on February 9, 2016, the Court denied
approval of the settlement.

On January 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified amended class
action and derivative complaint. In addition to the defendants
named in the earlier complaint, the amended complaint names David
Shackelton, Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital
Partners II, L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, Coliseum Capital Co-
Invest, L.P. (collectively, and together with Coliseum Capital
Management, LLC, "Coliseum") and RBC Capital Markets, LLC, ("RBC
Capital Markets") as additional defendants. The amended complaint
purports to assert direct and derivative claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against some or all of the Individual Defendants
and David Shackelton (collectively, the "Amended Individual
Defendants") regarding the approval of the subordinated note, the
rights offering, the Standby Purchase Agreement with Coliseum
Capital Management, and grant to Coliseum Capital Management of
certain stock options. The amended complaint also purports to
assert a derivative claim for unjust enrichment against Coliseum
and further alleges that Coliseum and RBC Capital Markets aided
and abetted the Amended Individual Defendants in breaching their
fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other things,
revision or rescission of the terms of the subordinated note and
preferred stock, corporate governance reforms, unspecified damages
and other relief.

By stipulated orders dated March 24, 2016, the Court allowed the
plaintiff to file a second amended complaint on or before May 7,
2016 and provided that the defendants need not respond to the
amended complaint.

The Company has indemnified the Standby Purchasers from and
against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses and
liabilities relating to or arising out of (i) any breach of any
representation, warranty, covenant or undertaking made by or on
behalf of the Company in the Standby Purchase Agreement and (ii)
the transactions contemplated by the Standby Purchase Agreement
and the 14.0% Unsecured Subordinated Note in aggregate principal
amount of $65,500,000, except to the extent that any such losses,
claims, damages, expenses and liabilities are attributable to the
gross negligence, willful misconduct or fraud of such Standby
Purchaser. The Company recorded approximately $106,000 of
indemnified legal expenses of the Standby Purchasers as required
by the Standby Purchase Agreement related to this case during the
three months ended March 31, 2016, which is included in "General
and administrative expenses" in the condensed consolidated
statement of income.

The Company recorded approximately $557,000 in fully insured legal
expenses related to this case during the three months ended March
31, 2016, which is included in "General and administrative
expenses" in the condensed consolidated statement of income and
has been fully reduced by an insurance receivable. The Company has
recognized an insurance receivable of approximately $1,819,000 and
$2,210,000 in "Other receivables" in the condensed consolidated
balance sheets at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015,
respectively, which is related to reimbursement of legal costs
through insurance proceeds related to this legal proceeding.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Muir" Plaintiff Seeks Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Plaintiff in the
case, Muir v. PRIAC, et al., filed an unopposed motion to
consolidate this lawsuit with the Rosen lawsuit.

In February 2016, a putative class action complaint entitled
Randall C. Muir, on behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and All Other Similarly Situated
Plans v. PRIAC, Prudential Bank & Trust, FSB, and Prudential
Investment Management Services, LLC, was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut. The complaint: (1)
seeks certification of a class of all Employee Retirement Income
Security Act covered employee pension benefit plans with which
Prudential has maintained a contractual relationship based on a
group annuity contract or group funding agreement; and (2) alleges
that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations by
accepting revenue sharing payments from investment vehicles in its
separate accounts and/or by accepting excessive compensation by
crediting rates on stable value accounts that are less than
PRIAC's internal rate of return. In April 2016, Plaintiff filed an
unopposed motion to consolidate this lawsuit with the Rosen
lawsuit.

Rosen, v. PRIAC, et al.

In April 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint: (i) removing
Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC, as a defendant;
(ii) withdrawing all claims concerning Stable Value Accounts; and
(iii) adding as defendants the employer/sponsor of Plaintiff's
retirement plan (Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.), and the investment
advisor for Plaintiff's retirement plan (Capfinancial Partners,
LLC d/b/a Captrust Financial Advisors).


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Parties in Sterling Heights Case Reach Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v.
Prudential Financial, Inc., et. al., in April 2016, the parties
entered into a proposed agreement to resolve the class action
claims asserted in the amended complaint. Thereafter, plaintiffs
filed a motion for an order preliminarily approving the settlement
in accordance with the parties' April 2016 Stipulation of
Settlement.


RITE AID: Seeks Dismissal of New York TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that Rite Aid HDQTRS. Corp. ("Rite Aid") has
recently sought summary dismissal of a putative class action
lawsuit pending in the Southern District Court of New York
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  Rite Aid's exposure to TCPA liability stems from its
use of prerecorded phone calls to certain pharmacy patients'
cellphones placed to remind them to get flu shots for the upcoming
flu season.

What are the arguments that Rite Aid has made in support of
dismissal of the TCPA suit?

Rite Aid has argued that it cannot be held liable for the
immunization reminder phone calls for the following reasons:

   -- The Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") Healthcare
Rule precludes liability because no prior express consent is
required for such calls so long as the recipient has previously
provided his/her cell phone number;

Rite Aid has argued that immunization reminders, such as the one
at issue, are the precise healthcare messages to which the
Healthcare Rule applies.

   -- The Federal Trade Commission has exempted from the
Telemarketing Sales Rule healthcare-related prerecorded message
calls that are otherwise subject to the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), such as the calls at
issue;

Even though consent was not required to place the healthcare-
related call, Rite Aid claims that it obtained sufficient consent
for the calls by way of:

   -- Plaintiff's provision of his phone number to a healthcare
provider, an act that the FCC has deemed to be prior express
consent for healthcare calls subject to HIPAA by a HIPAA-covered
entity; and

Plaintiff's signing various notices each time Plaintiff filled
prescriptions with Rite Aid, which provided Rite Aid with express
written consent to place the calls at issue.

Rite Aid's motion is currently awaiting a decision by the Court.

Should Rite Aid lose on its motion, and a nationwide class
ultimately be certified, Rite Aid could be exposed to hundreds of
millions of dollars in liability.  This should serve to reinforce
the notion that, in today's regulatory environment, it is
imperative to have telemarketing practices and procedures examined
by experienced counsel in order to avoid potentially disastrous
consequences in the event that a class action plaintiff or federal
regulator brings suit for alleged telemarketing-related
violations.


SABOR BROOKLYN: Faces "Gaspar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelino Gaspar, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Sabor Brooklyn LLC d/b/a Ideya Brooklyn,
Lauryn Small, and Mirko Berlosa, Case No. 1:16-cv-02835 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 2, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a restaurant in Brooklyn, New York.

Marcelino Gaspar is a pro se plaintiff.


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Judge to Hear PFOA Contamination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Berkshire Eagle Local News reports that a group of area
residents affected by PFOA contamination was set to have their day
in court on June 10 when a handful of cases alleging diminished
property values go before a federal judge.

The complaints, filed in U.S. District Court in Albany, seek class
action status for residents or property owners affected by the
potentially harmful chemical in their water.

Plaintiffs claim a loss of value of property values due to
contamination and allege negligence against two companies that
recently signed consent orders with the state holding them
responsible for cleaning up contamination, according to court
documents.  Plaintiffs seek compensation for damages and an
injunction to make the companies pay for long-term medical
studies.

The suits represent four cases that were found to be related and
consolidated by the court.  Plaintiffs have filed motions with the
court to consolidate the related cases and appoint Weitz &
Luxenberg, an Albany-based law firm that specializes in
class-action and personal injury litigation, as interim counsel.

Listed as plaintiffs are Michele Baker, Angela Corbett and Daniel
Schuttig; Lisa Tifft and Marilyn Pechham; Michael Hickey; and
Bryan N. Schrom and Kary Schrom.  All are residents of the village
of Hoosick Falls.

Listed as defendants are Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
and Honeywell International Inc. (formerly known as Allied-Signal
Inc.) Both companies signed consent orders holding them
responsible for contamination from the chemical once used to make
the nonstick coating Teflon.

According to a complaint filed in February by Weitz and Luxenberg
on behalf of Baker, Corbett and Schuttig, the three residents'
homes have lost value since news of PFOA contamination broke.
Baker, whose home is served by a private well, went to refinance
in January, but learned a local bank wasn't financing in the area,
according to the complaint.

In an interview on June 3, Baker said testing ultimately found her
water supply contained PFOA.  She's since gone to multiple banks
and gotten multiple appraisals.  Her home's value has dropped
about $14,000 -- from $120,000 in January to $106,000. She said
the decrease was based on her home having a point of entry
treatment (POET) water filtration system in her basement.

Weitz & Luxenberg previously organized an event at Bennington
College featuring the environmental and consumer advocate Erin
Brokovitch, who serves as a consultant to the firm.

PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, has been linked to kidney and
testicular cancers, as well as high blood pressure and cholesterol
and thyroid problems.

According to the complaints, plaintiffs are alleging negligence
against both companies for manufacturing processes that led PFOA
to be released into the environment.

The complaints allege manufacturing processes at sites like the 14
McCaffrey Street plant resulted in PFOA to be discharged into the
soil and the aquifer.  That property is located near three wells
serving the village municipal water system, which had a nodrink
order on it for months.  The factory was owned by Dodge
Industries, Oak Industries, Allied-Signal and Furon before current
owner Saint-Gobain acquired the factory around 1999.  The
companies used a PFOA solution in manufacturing stain resistant
fabric, film, tapes and foams. The suit alleges that employees
washed out trays and ovens used to apply and "bake" PFOA.  Water
used to wash equipment was released into drains, leading the
chemical to be discharged into the soil and the aquifer.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for themselves and other
affected Hoosick-area residents.  They also seek an injunction to
demand both parties pay to remediate their properties and
compensate residents for medical and other expenses.  The
plaintiffs also seek the companies to fund a long-term
biomonitoring study on health effects.


SANDEEP V: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hannahleigh Kite-Dillon, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad
Litem Linda Patricia Kite v. Sandeep V. Puddup Akkam, Anitha S.
Muthukumaran and Does 1-30, Case No. CV16817968 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 2, 2016), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered
emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and
out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and
refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject
premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Briefing Schedule for Appeal Not Yet Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta 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 briefing schedule
for the plaintiffs' appeal will be set by the First Circuit.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,
2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action
(Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No. 14-cv-10201) ("Corban") by order
of the court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28
days to file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to
bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that
purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 10,
2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint
alleged that Sarepta and certain of its officers violated the
federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to
eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and
sought damages in an unspecified amount. On March 31, 2015, the
Court granted Sarepta's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  On August 12, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
April 30, 2015 motion for leave seeking to file a further amended
complaint, and on September 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the
case. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit on September 29, 2015.

On January 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's order denying leave to amend and dismissing the
case, during the pendency of which the plaintiffs' appeal was
stayed.  On April 21, 2016, the District Court denied that motion.
In the Order, a copy of which is available at https://is.gd/pbKyT9
from Leagle.com, District Judge Indira Talwani said, "filing the
Proposed Third Amended Complaint would be futile, and Plaintiffs'
Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2) [#103] is denied."

The Company said a briefing schedule for the plaintiffs' appeal
will be set by the First Circuit. An estimate of the possible loss
or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

The appellate case is captioned as Cobran, et al. v. Sarepta
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-1658, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Amanda B. Murphy, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  abm@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter C. Harrar, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016-0000
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: harrar@whafh.com

               - and -

          Alan L. Kovacs, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN L. KOVACS
          257 Dedham Street
          Newton, MA 02461
          Telephone: (617) 964-1177
          Facsimile: (617) 332-1223
          E-mail: alankovacs@yahoo.com

Plaintiff Daniel Baradarian is represented by:

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal St., Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

Plaintiff Bijesh Amin is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal St., Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com

Defendants-Appellees Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Chris Garabedian,
Sandesh Mahatme and Ed Kaye are represented by:

          Alexia Rhae De Vincentis, Esq.
          Christopher G. Green, Esq.
          Mark David Vaughn, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          800 Boylston St
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000
          E-mail: Alexia.DeVincentis@ropesgray.com
                  Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com
                  Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Vito, Esq.
          US SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
          33 Arch Street, 23rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1424
          Telephone: (617) 573-4581
          E-mail: vitom@sec.gov

Interested Party Brian Heidrich is represented by:

          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport East
          2 Seaport Ln
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: astewart@shulaw.com

Interested Party Corban Group is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Alan L. Kovacs, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN L. KOVACS
          257 Dedham Street
          Newton, MA 02461
          Telephone: (617) 964-1177
          Facsimile: (617) 332-1223
          E-mail: alankovacs@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-0000
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: reynolds@whafh.com


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Opposed Kader Bid to File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 (Kader
v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et.al 1:14-cv-14318) ("Kader"),
asserting that the Company and certain of its officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs' amended complaint, filed on
March 20, 2015, alleged that the defendants made material
misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period
of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding the
sufficiency of the Company's data for submission of a new drug
application (NDA) for eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA
accepting the NDA based on that data. The plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages and fees.  On April 5, 2016, the Court
granted Sarepta's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to further
amend the complaint, which Sarepta opposed on April 22, 2016.
That motion remains pending, according to Sarepta's Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

                           *     *     *

In the Memorandum and Order dated April 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tnnOlmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Burroughs denied the
motion to strike as to Exhibits 4 and 24 finding that Defendants'
efforts to synthesize the information presented in their moving
papers to be useful and allowed with respect to Exhibits 2, 3, 16,
17, 18, 19, 21, and 23 because they are not properly before the
Court, nor are they essential to evaluating the sufficiency of the
Complaint.  Moreover, the Court ruled that all claims against
Defendants are dismissed because Plaintiffs have not met the
pleading standard under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 with respect to scienter and have not plausibly
alleged a motive to mislead.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jason M. Leviton, Esq. --
jason@blockesq.com  -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Kara Wolke, Esq. --
kwolke@glancylaw.com -- and Robert V. Prongay, Esq. --
Rprongay@glancy.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. is represented by Christopher G. Green,
Esq. -- Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com -- Justin Florence, Esq.
-- Justin.Florence@ropesgray.com -- and Mark D. Vaughn, Esq. --
Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Home Health Aides Lose Class Action Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill McMorris, writing for The Washington Free Beacon, reports
that a federal judge appointed by Barack Obama blocked Illinois
home health aides from recovering dues money they say was
illegally withdrawn from their checks by labor giant Service
Employees International Union.

District Court Judge Manish Shah denied class action status to
three home health aides attempting to recover agency fees that
SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana (SEIU) deducted from their
Medicaid reimbursements.  The union received more than $32 million
in dues from 80,000 personal assistants from 2008 to 2014, when
the Supreme Court declared the collection scheme unconstitutional.
Judge Shah said that the plaintiff home health aides had not
adequately proved that every one of their peers felt cheated by
the union.

"To prove injury, and the complete constitutional tort, plaintiffs
must prove contemporaneous subjective opposition to the compelled
payments," Judge Shah ruled in Riffey v. Rauner.

The case is a continuation of Harris v. Quinn, which brought an
end to coercive unionism for home health aides in Illinois.

Imprisoned former governor Rod Blagojevich and his Democratic
successor, Pat Quinn, each forced home health aides, including
those caring for family members, to pay dues money or agency fees
to SEIU in order to receive reimbursements from the state Medicaid
program.  The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that
since the aides collected taxpayer dollars they should be
considered public employees.  Illinois and SEIU abandoned the
practice following the court's 5-4 decision.

The case has been updated to reflect new players. Republican Gov.
Bruce Rauner took office in 2015 and has not taken a position on
the suit; plaintiff Pamela Harris did not suffer injury from the
case, so co-defendant Theresa Riffey became the face of the case.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which led the
Harris v. Quinn case, has remained on board to help plaintiffs who
had fees deducted by the union.  Foundation lawyer Bill Messenger
said that since the union was found to have obtained the money by
illegal means, it should be required to return the funds to
workers.

"This was money that was supposed to go toward the care of persons
with disabilities was funneled to a special interest group," he
said in a phone interview with the Washington Free Beacon.

The SEIU argued in a brief that the $32 million sum sought by the
home health aides threatened the union's financial future because
"total membership dues paid by all Union members in 2014 was about
$7.3 million."  Union attorneys also argued that any non-member
personal assistant who did not object to agency fee deductions
gave their tacit approval for the withdrawal.

The SEIU did not respond to a request for comment.

"Plaintiffs' class certification motion is not supported by any
evidence to show that the putative class members, who all received
the benefits of union representation, had any objection at the
time to paying their fair share for the costs of that
representation," the brief said.

Messenger said that the class action suit was the best course of
action given the breadth of plaintiffs and relatively small sum of
money each individual would collect after a lengthy legal battle.

"It would be uneconomical to do the same case again and again when
it averages out to around $400 per person.  How many people want
to file a full blown federal lawsuit for that?" he said.

The plaintiffs expect to appeal the district court's ruling to the
7th Circuit Court of Appeals.


SEUNG SUN: Faces "Raudales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Vera Raudales v. Seung Sun Park, d/b/a Suneel, Inc., and
Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. BC622336 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 2, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Suneel Inc. is a store located in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcelo A. Dieguez, Esq.
      DIEFER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949)260-9131
      Facsimile: (949) 260-9132
      E-mail: mdieguez@dieferlaw.com

         - and -

      Jerry D. Underwood, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JERRY D. UNDERWOOD APC
      8141 East Kaiser Suite 120
      Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
      Telephone: (714)998-9802
      Facsimile: (714) 998-9812
      E-mail: junderwood@jdulaw.com


SPECIAL TOUCH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Shamsiev" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Furkat Shamsiev, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc., Case
No. 509290/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., June 2, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc. provides home health care
services in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1517 Voorhies Aenue, 2nd Fl
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (800) 789-9396
      Facsimile: (866) 261-54 78
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


SPOKEO INC: Wins Data Accuracy Class Action Battle
--------------------------------------------------
Kevin Smith, writing for San Gabriel Valley Tribune, reports that
some of the biggest technology companies in the world are
supporting a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that came down in
favor of people-search engine Spokeo, which was fighting a class-
action lawsuit over the accuracy of its data.

A 2010 complaint filed by Thomas Robbins of Vienna, Virginia in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles alleges the Pasadena-based
business provided inaccurate information on him that was wrong on
several counts.

The complaint said the photo that accompanied the data on Robbins
was a shot of someone else.  The information also said Robbins was
married with children, in his 50s and employed in a professional
or technical field with a graduate degree.  All of that was wrong,
the complaint said, adding that his "wealth level" was also
inaccurately described.

Mr. Robbins claimed he had been looking for work throughout the
time Spokeo was displaying the erroneous information and that he
had been unable to find employment.  The bogus information, he
said, made him appear to be overqualified for jobs he might have
gained, expectant of a higher salary than employers would be
willing to pay and less mobile because of family responsibilities.

Mr. Robbins filed his suit as a federal class-action complaint on
behalf of himself and all U.S. residents who have had their
consumer information compiled and distributed or sold to third
parties by Spokeo Inc. between Jan. 2006 and July 16, 2010.

The complaint claims that because Spokeo provides a wealth of
information on people -- including their name, marital status,
occupation and economic health -- the company's inaccurate data
represents a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which
requires businesses to adhere to procedural safeguards to ensure
the accuracy of their data.

Spokeo, which operates as an online information aggregator, has
maintained it is not a consumer reporting agency.  But Robbins'
complaint alleges the company has been unlawfully operating and
profiting as a consumer reporting agency since its inception.

But in its May 16 ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the action,
saying that Robbins failed to prove an injury that was both
"concrete and particularized."

Jason Matthes, senior vice president and general counsel for
Spokeo, said the company fought the case all the way to the
Supreme Court because of a belief that class action lawsuits like
this can stifle technological progress.

"The court has seen abuse of class action lawsuits where no one
was injured, although there might be a technical violation,"
Mr. Matthes said.  "This costs businesses billions of dollars in
defense costs and it has a siphoning effect on innovation."

Giants within the tech industry, including Google, Facebook, and
Yahoo, have supported Spokeo's position, saying they are often the
target of class action lawsuits.

Mr. Matthes said Spokeo strives to provide information that's as
accurate as possible.

"It's not a perfect science," he said.  "But it's on the forefront
of our minds every single day because our data is used by
thousands of people each day."

Co-founded in 2006 by CEO Harrison Tang, Spokeo has boosted its
workforce from four employees to 200, 50 of whom were added last
year.  The company has also expanded operations at its Los Robles
Avenue headquarters to 24,593 square feet.

Spokeo provides users with access to a wide swath of information
ranging from addresses, emails and phone numbers to social network
profiles, court records and historical documents.  All told, the
company has amassed some 12 billion records, and that number is
expected to ramp up to 14 billion before long.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Additional Discovery Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that additional discovery
is ongoing in a class action lawsuit.

The company is involved, along with two other remaining steel
manufacturing company defendants, in a class action antitrust suit
in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, originally against eight
companies. The Complaint alleges a conspiracy on the part of the
original defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which steel products were sold in the United States
during a specified period between 2005 and 2007, by artificially
restricting the supply of such steel products. All but one of the
Complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all direct purchasers of steel products. The other Complaint
was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time period.
In addition, another similar complaint was filed in December 2010
purporting to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel
products in Tennessee. All Complaints have been consolidated in
the Chicago action and seek treble damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief. Following an extensive period of discovery and
related motions concerning class certification matters, the Court,
on September 9, 2015, certified a class, limited, however, to the
issue of the alleged conspiracy alone, and denied class
certification on the issue of antitrust impact and damages.  As a
result, some additional discovery is ongoing. The company has also
filed a motion for summary judgment, as has co-defendant SSAB, and
this matter is currently pending.


TPS PARKING: Faces "Freeman" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shakir Freeman, an individual v. TPS Parking Century, LLC, TPS
Parking Management, LLC, PRG Parking Management, LLC, does 1-10,
business entities, forms unknown, Does 11-20, individuals; and
Does 21-30, inclusive, Case No. BC622348 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 2,
2016), arises from the Defendants' unlawful termination of Mr.
Freeman's employment on the basis of his disability.

The Defendants operate a near-airport parking company in the
United States with thirty-seven locations at twenty-one airports
around the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cody D. Knight, Esq.
      Chantal R. McCoy, Esq.
      Mahru Madjidi, Esq.
      KNIGHT EMPLOYMENT LAW
      11500 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 444-3039
      Facsimile: (310) 870-7207
      E-mail: codyknight@knightemployment.com
              chantalmccoy@knightemployment.com
              mmadjidi@knightemployment.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Watchdog Calls for Audit of Fla. AG's Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Fox, writing for WESH, reports that a government-watchdog
group is calling for an audit of Florida Attorney General Pam
Bondi's actions regarding Trump University.

The program is embroiled in complaints and lawsuits, and reports
now suggest that Ms. Bondi solicited contributions from Trump,
then dropped an investigation of the university.

When Ms. Bondi endorsed Trump in March, it reignited the
controversy that's been dogging her for three years.

State records show a political committee formed to support her
called "And Justice For All" -- a Florida Electioneering
Communications Organization -- received a $25,000 contribution
from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

At the time, the Florida Attorney General's Office had received at
least one complaint about the "Trump Institute," which was
organizing seminars for the now-closed Trump University real
estate school.

Ms. Bondi chose not to investigate further and declined to join a
fraud lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's Office,
which is continuing, along with a class action lawsuit.

Now, the Associated Press is reporting that a Bondi consultant --
Marc Reichelderfer of Landmarc Strategies in Tallahassee -- said
Bondi personally solicited the $25,000 contribution, but only
because she was unaware of complaints.

"That's an inherent conflict of interest. and it does not look god
to the general public," said Ben Wilcox, director of Integrity
Florida.

Wilcox, a government watchdog, said via Skype that the governor
should call for an independent audit of Ms. Bondi's emails, texts
and other communications with Trump, as well as her staff's, at
the time Trump University was being investigated.

"This is a case that needs to be investigated to find out if there
was a quid pro quo for the campaign donation," Wilcox said.

No one in Ms. Bondi's office, nor those listed in IRS forms with
"And Justice For All" -- CPA Robert Watkins CPA and treasurer
Nancy Watkins -- returned WESH 2's phone calls.

Ms. Bondi released a statement on June 6.

"My office has made public every document on this issue.  Which
shows no one in my office ever opened an investigation on Trump
University," the statement read.

The attorney general also said reports suggesting she did anything
wrong, are completely "false."


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Issues Statement on Judge's Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hiltzik, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
seeking to tamp down the uproar over his bigoted attack on the
federal judge hearing two lawsuits against Trump University in
California, Donald Trump on June 7 issued a statement purporting
to lay out his substantive complaints about the judge's rulings.

Referring to U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, an Indiana-born
jurist of Mexican descent, Mr. Trump stated: "I do not feel that
one's heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based
on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil
case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a
fair trial."

He refers to "unfair and mistaken rulings in this case," ascribing
them at least in part to "the Judge's reported associations with
certain professional organizations," as a result of which
"questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge's
impartiality." (Raised by Trump, that is.) The two components of
this charge, therefore, are that (1) Judge Curiel's rulings have
been "unfair and mistaken," and (2) they're the result of Curiel's
ethnic resentment of Trump's hostility to Mexican immigrants.

The statement also offers several defenses of Trump University, a
series of real estate investment seminars that the plaintiffs,
along with New York Atty. Gen. Eric Schneiderman, allege were
worthless frauds.  Helaine Olen of Slate has an excellent rundown
of the "bluster, semitruths, and outright smoke" of these
defenses.

But let's examine the core issue underlying Trump's attack on
Judge Curiel: Has the judge made "unfair and mistaken" rulings
that disadvantaged Trump and Trump University? ("I have had ruling
after ruling after ruling that's been bad rulings, OK?" Trump told
CNN's Jake Tapper.)

Several experienced trial lawyers have taken a look at the record,
and their conclusion is: No.  Not only has Judge Curiel adhered
closely to the applicable law in every particular, but many of his
rulings have been highly advantageous to Trump and the, er,
"university."

Nor has Judge Curiel refrained from criticizing the plaintiffs'
lawyers on occasion.  In a February 2014 order in the class-action
lawsuit brought by former Trump University student
Tarla Makaeff and others, Judge Curiel disdained them for having
"woven a quilt made up of causes of action from all fifty states"
in an effort to sweep in the broadest possible class of victims
ostensibly harmed in 14 categories of shoddy business practices.
He slapped them down, narrowing the causes of action to only five
categories and limiting them to only California, Florida and New
York.

As Philadelphia plaintiffs lawyer Max Kennerly observed, the
ruling fulfilled "one of the key goals of a defendant" in a class-
action -- narrowing the class certification. It could only be
considered a huge victory for Trump.

Mr. Kennerly, along with Ken White, a Los Angeles lawyer who blogs
at Popehat.com, has taken an especially deep dive into the record
of both cases.  Kevin Drum, a non-lawyer, also offers a typically
cogent look at the cases, citing White and
Mr. Kennerly.

Mr. Kennerly reported that Mr. Trump also notched a win last
September on class-certification issues, although the judge did
give plaintiffs a victory on the issue of how much the former
Trump University enrollees should recover if they won their case.
The question turned on whether the courses they took were
completely worthless or had some residual value, even if they'd
been misled into thinking that Mr. Trump himself was intimately
involved in developing the curriculum and hand-picking
instructors.  In passing, Judge Curiel observed that although a
trial court might eventually find that the Trump University
programs "possessed value," restitution should turn on the fact
that the customers probably wouldn't have bought the programs at
all if they knew in advance that Trump's role was marginal, if
even that.  If they win, he ruled, they should get all their money
back.  "The fraud in the selling, not the value of the thing sold,
is what entitles consumers in this case to full refunds," he
ruled.

But as Mr. Kennerly explained, this ruling wasn't out of left
field.  It was "a straightforward application of precedent" set
down by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which applies in
Judge Curiel's courtroom.

Mr. Trump has tried to make much of the withdrawal of Ms. Makaeff
as a plaintiff in one of the class-action lawsuits.  "Once the
plaintiffs' lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was,"
Mr. Trump said in his statement on June 7, "they asked to have her
removed from the case.  Over my lawyers' objections, the judge
granted the plaintiffs' motion, but allowed the case to continue."

That's not what happened.  Mr. Trump may be feeling his pique
because Ms. Makaeff figuratively bloodied his nose before
departing from the case: She beat him when he sued her for
defamation, winning recovery of nearly $800,000 in legal fees and
court costs.  On the other hand, she had sought more than $1.3
million.  In February, Ms. Makaeff asked to withdraw because she
had been "put through the wringer" by Mr. Trump, whose counter-
suit left her fearing bankruptcy.  She was experiencing health
problems and could not "match, or even scratch, Trump's pulpit,"
she said in her motion, adding that "for years, Trump has tried
his case in the press through a website and taunting media
quotes."

Judge Curiel let her go, but specifically ruled that Mr. Trump
wouldn't be disadvantaged by her departure because other
plaintiffs remained on board.

Mr. Trump has made much of Judge Curiel's refusal to dismiss the
lawsuits on summary judgment.  Mr. White and Mr. Kennerly have
made short work of this argument, as did Judge Curiel in the
Makaeff case.

Mr. White explained that summary judgment isn't about whether one
side's evidence is stronger than the other -- it's about whether
one side has no evidence at all, in which case judgment should be
entered for the other.  "Here, the plaintiffs offered evidence
which, if believed, would show that Trump was responsible for
false statements and the students relied on those statements," Mr.
White wrote.  He placed it "well within the range of normal
federal judicial decisions on summary judgment."

Judge Curiel hasn't ruled yet on Mr. Trump's motion for summary
judgment on the second case.  A hearing on that motion is
scheduled until July 18.

Put it all together and Mr. Trump's complaints are the routine
grousing of a litigant who has lost a few and won a few, and wants
to whine only about the rulings he's lost.  His bootstrapping of a
bigoted ethnic attack on the judge is what matters, and even his
Republican colleagues are running from that in horror.

"Judge Curiel is doing his job like a normal judge, issuing
rulings consistent with the case law," Mr. Kennerly concluded.
"But you already knew that."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Probes Tactics in Antitrust Case
---------------------------------------------------------
James Covert, writing for The New York Post, reports that private
dicks hired by Uber may have used sneaky, illegal tactics as they
tried to ferret out info on a Connecticut man who has brought an
antitrust suit against the ride-hailing app, a judge ruled.

Manhattan federal Judge Jed Rakoff ordered Uber on June 7 to hand
over documents as he probes specifically whether Uber instructed a
private eye to lie in order to elicit information about
Spencer Meyer, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, as well as his
lawyer.

In one instance, an investigator hired by Uber allegedly called
professional colleagues of Mr. Meyer's lawyer, Andrew Schmidt, and
"falsely stated that he was compiling a profile of up-and-coming
labor lawyers in the United States," according to Judge Rakoff's
order.

With its alleged lying over the phone, the investigative firm,
called Ergo, raised "a serious risk of perverting the process of
justice before this court," Judge Rakoff wrote.

Mr. Meyer's suit, which was filed in December and seeks class-
action status, alleges that Uber's billionaire boss, Travis
Kalanick, orchestrated a price-fixing scheme with Uber drivers.
The suit names Mr. Kalanick and not the ride-hailing company,
though Uber is seeking to intervene in the lawsuit.

"Uber has a simple but illegal business plan: to fix prices among
competitors and take a cut of the profits," according to the suit.

When confronted about the investigator's calls, lawyers for
Mr. Kalanick initially denied that Uber was involved with them.

"Whoever is behind these calls, it is not us," Mr. Kalanick's
lawyers told Meyer's lawyers in January, according to court
documents.

Now, however, Uber acknowledges that it "mistakenly represented"
to Mr. Meyer's lawyer "that it had not hired Ergo," court papers
say.

Uber's lawyers also now admit they hired Ergo to dig up
information about Meyer, and that Uber employees gave
"instructions or assignments" to Ergo and "were involved in
engaging and instructing Ergo."

Uber officials still deny that they knew the investigator had lied
or concealed his identity, calling him a "misguided employee" in a
filing.

Ergo's lawyer told the court that the firm was "gathering
intelligence . . . about [Meyer's] motivations . . . and why he
was bringing this particular litigation."

Uber officials declined to comment.  Schmidt, Mr. Meyer's lawyer,
didn't respond to requests for comment.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: 9th Cir. Class Action Appeal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal is
pending in a class action lawsuit.

The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the
defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling
previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative
securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.,
No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and
certain of its current and former officers.

On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and
financial results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to
dismiss the Complaint, and the court granted the motion to dismiss
without prejudice on August 5, 2013.

On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class period,
alleged violations, and relief sought.

On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court
entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in
its entirety with no further leave to amend. On October 24, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit from the district court's order granting the
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Appellant
filed its opening brief on April 3, 2015 and the Company filed its
reply brief on June 17, 2015; additional appellate briefing was
filed in the third quarter 2015.


UNIRUSH LLC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Fuentes et al v. UniRush, LLC et al, Case No. 1:15-
cv-08372 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J Paul Oetken on May 17 entered an
order "Certifying A Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approving The
Class Action Settlement, And Directing Notice To The Settlement
Class."

The Court will hold the Final Approval Hearing under Rule 23(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at 11:00 a.m. on September
12, 2016, in Courtroom 706 at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007, to
determine, among other things, whether:

     (a) the proposed settlement on the terms and conditions
provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be given final approval by the Court;

     (b) whether a judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice
should be entered;

     (c) whether to approve the payment of the attorneys fees and
expenses to Class Counsel; and

     (d) whether to approve the payment of the Service Awards to
the Class Representatives.

The Court may adjourn the Final Approval Hearing without further
notice to members of the Settlement Class. By no later than 21
days prior to the Objection Deadline, Plaintiffs shall file a
motion for final approval of the Settlement and a motion for
attorneys fees, costs, and expenses and for Service Awards.

By no later than seven days prior to the Final Approval Hearing,
the Parties shall file responses, if any, to any objections, and
any replies in support of final approval of the Settlement and/or
Class Counsels application for attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses and for Service Awards for each Class Representatives.

Meta Financial Group, Inc.(R) 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 Bank have been named as defendants, along with other
defendants, in four class action litigations commenced in three
different federal district courts between October 23, 2015 and
November 5, 2015: (1) Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush LLC, et al.
(S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08372); (2) Huff et al. v. UniRush, LLC
et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-02253-KJM-CMK); (3) Peterkin v.
UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08573); and (4)
Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No. 5:15-cv-05996-
JLS). The same defendants, including the Company and the Bank,
were also named as defendants in an additional class action
litigation commenced in yet another federal district court on
April 13, 2016: (5) Smith v. UniRush LLC, et al. (C.D. Cal. No.
2:16-cv-02533-SVW-E).

The complaints in each of these five actions seek monetary damages
for the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product
RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or
about October 12, 2015.

The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, fraud,
misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion, and
breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various state consumer
protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or
trade/business practices. In addition, the OCC and the CFPB are
examining the events surrounding the allegations with respect to
the Company and the other defendants, respectively.

The OCC has broad supervisory powers with respect to the Bank and
could seek to initiate supervisory action if it believes such
action is warranted. Because these cases were recently filed and
are in their early stages and because of the many questions of
fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding
is uncertain at this point.  The Company's estimate of a range of
reasonably possible loss is approximately $0 to $0.1 million.

Meta Financial Group, Inc. and Metabank are represented in the
case by Michael Isidoro Verde -- michael.verde@kattenlaw.com --
and Philip Adam Nemecek -- philip.nemecek@kattenlaw.com -- at
Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP.

UniRush, LLC, Rush Communications, LLC and Rush Communications of
NYC, Inc. are represented by Kevin Paul Broughel --
kevinbroughel@paulhastings.com -- and Thomas Patrick Brown --
tombrown@paulhastings.com -- at Paul Hastings LLP.


UNIT CORPORATION: Panola ISD Action Still Pending in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 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 case, Panola
Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum
Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County,
Oklahoma, remains pending.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our
Oklahoma production. We have asserted several defenses including
that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also
asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due
to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if
any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009,
the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11,
2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order
certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court
for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition
was denied.

On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to
certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than
their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further
amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners
entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le
Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where,
in addition to the defenses described above, we argued that the
amended class definition is still deficient under the court of
civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification.
Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014.

There is no timetable for when the court will issue its ruling.
The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class
certification issues are pending.


UNITED STATES: IRS Unveils Expanded List of Probed Nonprofits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles S. Clark, writing for Government Executive, reports that
in the latest wrinkle in the three-year-old dispute over alleged
targeting of conservative nonprofits, the Internal Revenue Service
compiled a new list of organizations that might be members of a
class action claiming damages: The roster extends to 426 groups, a
larger number than the 296 compiled by the agency's inspector
general in 2013.

Some critics of the IRS see the expanded list as a sign that the
scope of the political targeting grew, though like the earlier
list, it contains groups of varying political leanings.

Names include such groups as We the People Eugene, the League of
Women Voters of Central Vermont, the Young Americans for Liberty
Foundation, and the Patriots of Charleston.

The list was first reported by the Washington Times.  It was
pulled from a May 24 Justice Department Tax Division filing in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the case
NorCal Tea Party Patriots v. the Internal Revenue Service.
Plaintiffs claim the IRS' Exempt Organizations division violated
their privacy and constitutional rights by delaying and
scrutinizing their applications for tax-exempt status as social
welfare groups.

The list of class action members, required by a circuit court
judge's order in March, was accompanied by a note from Justice
Department attorneys noting that the original list was even
higher, but the agency had received opt-out requests for the class
action from 40 entities.  The IRS had received 165 notices marked
"return to sender," 35 of which were for groups with no known
alternative address.

Edward Greim, a Kansas City, Mo., attorney representing the 426
organizations now party to the class action filed in 2013, told
Tax Analysts that the original shorter list compiled in 2012 by
the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration was "just a
snapshot in time.  The IRS was continuing its conduct after that
list was created, at least for another year."

A national group called the Tea Party Patriots, in commentary on
its website, said, "The number of organizations targeted in the
scandal is staggering, and goes to show how deep the corruption at
President Obama's IRS runs.  IRS Commissioner John Koskinen,
meanwhile, has looked the other way and apparently attempted to
cover up the extent of the scandal."  The group asks readers to
help impeach the commissioner.

Less concerned about the enlarged list is Paul Streckfus, an
attorney who edits a daily newsletter on tax-exempt organizations.
"It's true political groups seeking 501(c)(4) status were set
aside for further development, which lasted much too long.  But
there has been uncovered no proof of a scandal, just an overly
cautious IRS that was being pressured by both sides," he told
Government Executive.  "The reality is that most applicants
probably did not qualify for 501 (c)(4) status. The IRS should
have denied them as they came in; they could have gone to court if
the IRS came after them."

Mr. Streckfus doubts the conservative groups suffered much harm,
asserting that "deep-pocketed" interests are funding the lawsuits.
"The people who have suffered are the ones who got caught up in
this political witch hunt -- [former IRS executives] Steve Miller,
Lois Lerner, and all the other IRS employees who are still listed
as defendants in some of these suits."

The NorCal Tea Party Patriots case, said the plaintiffs' attorney,
goes to trial in summer 2017.


UNITED STATES: Settlement Payouts Underway in Keepseagle Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Zaffos, writing for The Journal, reports that some overdue
support and payback are on the way for Native American farmers and
ranchers.  A $380 million settlement, issued by a federal judge
this April, will create a Native American-run $265 million endowed
trust for nonprofit organizations working on Indian lands.  It
will also pay other money to families who sued the U.S. Department
of Agriculture for discrimination.

The settlement stems from a 1999 class-action lawsuit, filed by
Marilyn and George Keepseagle, ranchers from the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe in North Dakota.  The case claimed the USDA Farm Loan
Program illegally discriminated against thousands of Native
American farmers and ranchers during the previous two decades,
denying them opportunities to receive farm loans, technical
assistance and other services routinely offered to white farmers
and ranchers.  Since many tribal farmers have only partial, or
fractionated, shares of parcels due to 20th-century Indian land
policies, families often lack land equity and struggle to get
loans or credit access for farming -- even without facing
discriminatory practices.  The Obama administration originally
settled Keepseagle v. Vilsack in 2010, agreeing to pay $680
million to class action claimants.

"It was a strong case and the government knew that," says
Sarah Krakoff, a University of Colorado law professor.  "The
settlement is very significant and an important recognition by the
government of past harmful practices."

But three years later, a whopping $380 million was still
unclaimed.  The USDA lacked documentation of original loan
applications in cases, while Marilyn Keepseagle and others claimed
Indians' lack of trust in the government likely discouraged
individuals from filing claims.  The government threatened to
reclaim the unused funds, while plaintiffs asked for more money.
A judge instead forced the parties to work on a negotiated
settlement, which led to the April announcement.  Of the remaining
$380 million, $77 million will augment initial payouts to farmers
and ranchers, and $38 million will go to nonprofits identified by
lawyers, with a "fast-track process" now open to applicants.  The
remaining $265 million for the endowed trust will be administered
by tribes and distributed primarily to nonprofits over 20 years;
it's considered the largest ever philanthropic fund for Indian
Country.

Ross Racine, executive director of the Montana-based Intertribal
Agriculture Council, calls the trust "the fairest and best long-
term use of that funding," despite some plaintiffs' criticism of
the settlement terms and the amount of money going to nonprofits.
Mr. Racine anticipates the trust will fund new and existing
educational programs and credit-access and lending projects on
reservations.  For instance, the 1993 American Indian Agricultural
Resource Management Act established an educational assistance
program for Native American students pursuing agricultural and
natural-resources careers, but it never received federal dollars.
The Keepseagle trust money could finally launch and fund the
program, with a nonprofit group as administrator.

Providing financial and other support for individual and family
tribal farmers meets a critical need, Mr. Racine says.  Another
high-profile tribal class-action lawsuit, Cobell v. Salazar, which
alleged federal mismanagement of Indian land and mineral trust
assets and revenue, was settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion.  A large
portion of that money, $1.9 billion, has been used to establish a
Land Buy-Back Program to acquire tribal members' fractionated land
shares and provide money to start a business, farm, or ranch,
while also helping to sort out reservations' complicated land
ownership issues.  But those sales remove lands from family
control to tribal ownership, further blocking farmers from
building land equity.

"I don't see Cobell enabling individuals to buy land . That land
is being bought by the government and being returned to the
tribes," Mr. Racine says.  That's among the reasons the buyback
program is off to a slow start, with many Native Americans opting
not to sell their land shares (as detailed in a recent HCN feature
by Sierra Crane- Murdoch).  The Keepseagle trust and settlement,
on the other hand, will enable individuals to hold onto land and
give them access to credit and other support to pursue enterprises
on their family parcels.  "This funding will fill a different
niche."


VISIONWORKS INC: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Visionworks, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-21990-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Visionworks, Inc. operates and manages 700 optical retail stores
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement in
a securities litigation is subject to final approval of the Court.

On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative securities class action
suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, its board of directors, a former director and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.  On
November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re
Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on September 19, 2014.

The consolidated complaint names certain current and former
officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering and secondary offering and alleges claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly
false and materially misleading statements and omissions in the
registration statement for the Company's initial public offering
and secondary offering and in communications regarding its
business and financial results. The suit is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 28,
2012 and May 2, 2013, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission,
fees and costs, as well as other relief.

On November 3, 2014 Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On February 11, 2015, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims, but denied the motion
as to the Exchange Act claims, allowing the matter to proceed on
that basis. On April 27, 2015 Defendants filed answers to the
consolidated complaint.

In connection with a mediation, an agreement in principle to
settle the suit was reached in October 2015. On March 4, 2016, the
Court issued an order granting Lead Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement, which is
subject to final approval of the Court, calls for payment of $9
million, which will be funded entirely by the Company's insurance
carriers.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fleck" Suit in D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
The case is captioned William Fleck and Bartosz Zielezinski, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Audi Aktiengesellschaft, and Audi of America, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03296-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., June 7,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Jose L. Linares.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584 0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


VONAGE HOLDINGS: 9th Circuit Reversed Decision in Merkin Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Ninth Circuit has
withdrawn its February 29, 2016 decision in the case by Merkin &
Smith, et al. and issued a new order reversing the district
court's order and remanded with instructions to compel
arbitration.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On
October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, which the Court denied on February 4, 2014. On March
5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014, the district
court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal. On February 29,
2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling and
remanded with instructions to grant the motion to compel
arbitration. On March 22, 2016 Merkin and Smith filed a petition
for rehearing. On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its
February 29, 2016 decision and issued a new order reversing the
district court's order and remanded with instructions to compel
arbitration. The court also declared as moot the petition for
rehearing.


WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Online Program Scam, Ex-Student Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerome R. Corsi, writing for WND, reports that a victim of
Laureate Education, the Clinton-backed, for-profit college, has
come forward with accusations that its Walden University Online is
a scam that piles tens of thousands of dollars of debt on
unsuspecting students while unreasonably delaying degrees or often
failing to deliver them.

"When I signed up for Walden Education in January 2009, I was told
I would get my Doctor of Education degree by December 2011, after
two years study for a cost of $40,000," explained
Teresa Ferguson, a mother of three teenagers who resides outside
Atlanta.

"That was OK with me.  I could accept two years and $40,000, but
that isn't the way it happened," she explained.  "With Walden, I
was hit with delays and program change after program change, so it
took me two extra years and I ended up with $120,000 in tuition
debt.  I'm a schoolteacher.  How am I ever going to pay off a debt
like that?"

Walden University Online: 'A complete scam'

At Walden, once she had completed her required courses,
Ms. Ferguson faced a series of changes in her dissertation
advisers and in the chair of the education department she alleges
were intentionally designed to extend the enrollment time needed
to get her doctorate.  The delay forced her to pay additional
tuition far above her initial expectations.

Get a first-hand account of the Democratic Party presidential
front-runner's character in "Hillary The Other Woman."  Then take
action with the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project and
let others know, with a bumper sticker calling for "Hillary for
prosecution, not president."

"Laureate Education is a scam," Ferguson, a teacher of English as
a second language at a county high school, told WND in an email
and telephone interview.

"Bill Clinton makes $16 million being 'honorary chairman' at
Laureate while meanwhile Walden Online University ruined my life,"
she said.  "I have three teenage children, and now I have no clue
how we'll pay for their college with my student debt so high."

WND reported Laureate Education paid $16 million to Bill Clinton
to be the group's pitchman while the State Department funneled $55
million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

Ms. Ferguson participated in a class action suit, Travis et al v.
Walden University LLC, that was filed in U.S. District Court in
the District of Maryland and dismissed in 2015.

"I pray you will do the research (to) expose how badly Walden is
hurting their students," she wrote to WND in an email.  "Laureate
Education and the Clintons should not be allowed to get away with
this."

But Ms. Ferguson has not yet stopped fighting.

"I am one of the many Walden students who are trying to sue the
college for their many delays, changes in committees, and fraud
against their own policies. It should not be allowed," she told
WND.  "Our group is still fighting and trying to get a new lawyer,
but we need someone who can be a voice for us."

Two years and $120,000 in student debt later

Ferguson said that after "a series of unreasonable delays, I
finally got my Ed.D. in 2013, but only after I took on a total
$120,000 of student debt."

"Now I have no idea how we're going to pay for my teenagers to go
to college when my student tuition debt is so high," she said.

Ms. Ferguson was initially attracted to Walden University because
she could complete her graduate work online.

"I thought with my busy career teaching and raising my three
teenage children, I thought that was perfect," she said.  "I'm
pretty much self-motivated, and I liked the idea of online study."

But while her required coursework went as expected, Ms. Ferguson's
problems seriously began when she got to the dissertation stage of
her graduate work in the spring of 2011.

"I was a week from getting my doctorate.  I'd already passed my
final oral and gotten my final approval from my thesis adviser,"
she continued.  "Then I got an email stating that my thesis
adviser had been fired."

From there, her experience with Walden Online University went from
bad to worse.

"The new adviser disapproved 55 pages of my work, most of which
was from the proposal stage that had been approved eight months
earlier," Ms. Ferguson said.  "Then there were more firings of my
dissertation supervisors, with the result I had to extend my
enrollment for two more years and pay a lot more tuition money
before I got my degree."

She found her experience pursuing a doctorate at Walden University
Online both frustrating and costly.

"Can you imagine being one week away from graduating and someone
new comes along and says you're not graduating," Ms. Ferguson
continued.  "Instead, you have to take another course, you have to
redo your work.  Then, eight months later, you finally finish.

"At the end, I was literally living in a hotel and letting my
husband take care of our kids because I was trying to finish my
dissertation after all these changes were required.  I was having
migraine headaches and I'm disabled.  I can only use one hand to
type."

Ms. Ferguson told WND she telephoned and wrote to the president of
Walden University Online and even made a complaint with the
attorney general's office in Georgia, but she failed to get any
satisfaction.

Hundreds of student complaints filed online

Complaints from Walden University Online graduate students have
been posted on websites such as GotClassAction.com and
ComplaintBoard.com, maintained as a National Consumer Complaint
Forum, all support Ferguson's accusations.

"Gordon C." explained in a post two days ago on GotClassAction.com
why he wants to join a class action suit against the school:

I have had such a bad experience with Walden that I too would like
to join a class action lawsuit.  I found instructors to be very
dismissive, complaining that they did not have time, and only to
find out that this was a side job for them in that they worked for
another institution besides Walden.  I now owe $20, 000 with
nothing to show for it.  Yes let me know if I can join.
Interesting how Bill Clinton took $16 million from this
institution and the government won't take action.  I think I smell
a rat here.  Hillary will lose my vote over this.

On Feb. 28, "Very Disappointed Student" criticized the instructors
in a post on GradReports.com:

It is going on six maybe seven years and I have not gotten my
prospectus approved.  I am totally disappointed with Walden
University.  The instructors are rude and some are pompous and
narcissistic.  The program does not prepare students for the
dissertation.  I am in the thick of it financially and have stuck
it out this far.  Either staff resign or those that sit for you
temporarily are getting their pockets lined.  No I would never
refer anyone to attend Walden it has become a nightmare.  Do not
go there it truly SUCKS!!!

On April 18, "Dr. Jackson" told of a fruitless seven years as a
doctoral student on ComplaintBoard.com:

RIP OFF!!!!

I am a Doctoral Student Consultant and have been working with a
Doctoral student at Walden University. We have been working
together for the past 7 years and still haven't gotten anything
accomplished.  She is now on her 3rd chair who mistakenly sent an
ugly email to her which was meant for another colleague of his. In
the email to the colleague, the chair suggested that he should
probably dissuade the student from continuing since she has
reached her 8th year and is a poor writer.  What kind of chair
says that about a student? As a partner in this with my student, I
deeply disgusted and my student is heartbroken.  If there is a
lawsuit pending against them and you have a good lawyer, please
pass their information along.


WARNER MUSIC: New Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Under Discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a new Class
Certification briefing schedule is currently under discussion in
the case related to the pricing of digital music downloads.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us
with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information
relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both
investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order
dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us. However,
on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of
the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings
and on January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court
granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part.
Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were
dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and
federal claims remain for the class of Internet download
purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended
complaint on August 31, 2011. The Company filed its answer to the
fourth amended complaint on October 9, 2015. Plaintiffs filed an
amended Class Certification brief on October 12, 2015. The Company
filed amended answers to the fourth amended complaint on November
3, 2015. A mediation took place on February 22, 2016 but the
parties were unable to reach a resolution. A new Class
Certification briefing schedule is currently under discussion.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of
the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could
continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of
management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are
reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
presently be made.


WHITE OAK: Faces "Yi" Class Suit in District Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against White Oak
Department of Motor Vehicle of Maryland.

The case is captioned Chong Su Yi, and people of similarly
situated v. White Oak Department of Motor Vehicle of Maryland,
Case No. 8:16-cv-01802-PJM (D. Md., June 2, 2016).

White Oak Department of Motor Vehicle of Maryland is a government
agency that provides motor vehicular administration services.

Chong Su Yi is a pro se plaintiff.


XTO ENERGY: Roderick & Chieftain Royalty Cases Proceeding
---------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed
against XTO Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living
Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny
County, Kansas. The case was removed to federal court in Wichita,
Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken
post production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from
wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado; later reduced to
Kansas.

The case was certified as a class action in March 2012. XTO Energy
filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012, which was granted on June 26,
2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and
remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The case was previously stayed pending a final decision from the
Kansas Supreme Court on the Fawcett v. OPIK appeal. Following the
decision in Fawcett, the Judge in Roderick ordered new briefing on
the pending motions. In its pleadings, the plaintiff has alleged
damages in excess of $40 million.

In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent
efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and
its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether
they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests.

The case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO Energy
filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012, which was granted on June 26,
2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and
remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Hugoton Royalty 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 XTO Energy has
informed the trustee that it believes that XTO Energy has strong
defenses to these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend its
position. However, XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it is
cognizant of other, similar litigation. As these cases develop,
XTO Energy will assess its legal position accordingly. If XTO
Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments or receives a
judgment against it in Chieftain or Roderick, XTO Energy has
advised the trustee that the Trust should bear its 80% share of
such settlement or judgment, including any future royalty
adjustments that would reduce net proceeds. The trustee intends to
review any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the
facts and circumstances of such settlement or judgment. In light
of the arbitration tribunal's decision on the treatment of the
Fankhouser settlement, to the extent that the claims in Chieftain
or Roderick are similar to those in Fankhouser, the trustee would
likely object to such claimed reductions.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the amount of
any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in
its management's opinion, the amount is not currently expected to
be material to the Trust's financial position or liquidity though
it could be material to the Trust's annual distributable income.
Additionally, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that any
reductions would result in costs exceeding revenues on the
properties underlying the net profit interests of the cases named
above, as applicable, for several monthly distributions, depending
on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and the net
proceeds being paid at that time, which would result in the net
profits interest being limited until such time that the revenues
exceed the costs for those net profit interests. If there is a
settlement or judgment and should XTO Energy and the trustee
disagree concerning the amount of the settlement or judgment to be
charged, if any, against the Trust's net profits interests, the
matter will be resolved by binding arbitration through the
American Arbitration Association under the terms of the Indenture
creating the Trust.


                            *********

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  * * *