CAR_Public/160621.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 21, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 123




                            Headlines


A1 SOLAR POWER: Bell Claims Tossed; Waterbury Claims Survive
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: 2017 Trial Date in King Digital Class Suit
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Still Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Defendants' Reply Briefs Due July 1
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTAL: "Henn" Case Goes to Neb. Supreme Court

AQUALON: Settles Race Discrimination Class Action for $175,000
ARANGO PA: "Zait" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
BANK OF AMERICA: LD Construction Files Anti-Trust Suit
BANK OF NEW YORK: Faces $30MM Penalty for Overcharging FX Trades
BEST BUY: "Nunez" Suit Over False Discounts Dismissed

BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Case in Early Stages
BIRCHMOUNT RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Brookfield Deal
BLUE CROSS: Settlement Deal in Shane Group Suit Vacated
BNV HOME: "Tkachuk" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
C1 FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action

CADIZ INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending
CENTURY 21: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Updates on Drinking Water Actions
CITIBANK: Settles Class Action Over Privacy Violations
CLUB MED SALES: "Lecorche" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

COMMUNITY BANK: Court Dismissed 2 Related Class Suits
DAIRY FARMERS: Dec. 2015 Deal in "Allen" Has Final Okay
DARLING CABARET: Must Report Dancers' Names, "Arreaga" Suit Says
DOTHAN, AL: Faces Class Action Over Special Judges Appointment
DS WATERS: Sept. 29 Final Approval Hearing on "Eddings" Accord

DSW INC: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Action in California
ERICKSON INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $18.5 Million
EZCORP INC: Objections to Discovery Bids Due June 29 in N.Y. Case
EZCORP INC: June 22 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: To Oppose Class Certification

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Merger Deal
FLINT, MI: Hired Law Firm to Investigate Chubb Allegations
FONTERRA: Likely to Be in Black This Year, Class Action Ongoing
FOUR CORNERS: Faces Class Action Over Loyalty Rewards Program
GENERAL CABLE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over ABACUS 2007-AC1 Stayed Pending Appeal
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accords in 2008 and 2010 Suits Have Initial OK
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Force-Placed Insurance Has Initial OK
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Solazyme Securities Case Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: FireEye Securities Litigation Ongoing

GOLDMAN SACHS: Cobalt Securities Litigation Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends ISDAFIX-Related Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in ERISA Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Consolidate Interest Rate Swap Case Filed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swaps Suit Filed in April 2016

HALYARD HEALTH: Parties in Prime Healthcare Case in Discovery
HAMILTONS VALET: "Martins" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
HARTFORD, CT: Hotel Owners Mull Class Action Over Tax Burden
HOBART SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid in "Alcantar" Under Submission
HORTONWORKS INC: Faces Class Action in California

HOUSTON GARDEN: Conditional Certification Sought in "Romero" Suit
II-VI INCORPORATED: To Defend Against Zalewski Litigation
INFINITY INSURANCE: Copelan Asks Court to Certify 2 Classes
INTEX RECREATION: Class Certification Sought in "Mirescu" Suit
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Settles Class Action Over Dating Site

KEYS PRODUCTIONS: Collective Action Sought in "Dixon" Suit
LAFAYETTE, IN: Class Action Seeks Refunds of Utility Payments
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Still Pending
LIN MING-HUI: Survivors of Collapsed Building File Class Action
LIVANOVA PLC: To Defend Against Baker Miller Case

MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Suits
MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Class Action in Calif.
MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Class Action in Tel Aviv
MARIETTA MEMORIAL: "Myers" Plaintiffs Must Submit to Deposition
MATTRESS FIRM: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims

MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: "Cortez" Remanded to Sacramento County
MDL 1657: 5 Vioxx Product Liability Suits v. Merck Still Active
MDL 1657: June 28 Final Approval Hearing on Vioxx Settlement
MDL 1789: 4,435 Fosamax Cases v. Merck Pending as of March 31
MDL 2452: 1,140 Januvia/Janumet Claims Served as of March 31

MDL 2481: Class Cert. Ruling Expected by Mid-October 2016
MEDICAL REVIEW: "Walpole" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
MERCK & CO: 20 Femur Fracture Cases Pending as of March 31
MERCK & CO: 3,040 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in N.J.
MERCK & CO: 300 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in Calif.

MERCK & CO: 1,385 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Filed as of March 31
MERCK & CO: Court Granted Bid to Amend Sales Force Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Dismisses FDCPA Class Action
MINOR LEAGUE: February 2017 Trial Scheduled for Class Action
MISSOURI: Mo. Ct. App. Rules on "Poger" Appeal

NEWELL BRANDS: Must Update Court on Case Status by June 30
NII HOLDINGS: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NINE ENERGY: "Sams" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
NORTHERN MONTANA RETIREMENT: "Cleary" Seeks Payment of Benefits
PEOPLES BANCORP: Plaintiff Had Until June 7 to Appeal Ruling

PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
PICKVEST: Investors Reject Class Action Settlement Offer
PITTSBURGH GLASS: Seeks Dismissal of Age Discrimination Claims
PLY GEM: Updates on Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement
PLY GEM: Petition for Appeal in "Pagliaroni" Case Denied

PLY GEM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Underway
PLY GEM: Damages in "Carrillo-Hueso" Suit Not Yet Quantified
PLY GEM: Damages in "Morgan" Suit Not Yet Quantified
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Obtained Summary Judgment in "Ciganek"
PRIDE TRANSPORT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action

QUALITY CONSULTING: "Todd" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
RED RABBIT: "Torres" Seeks to Recover OT, Spread of Hours Pay
RP FIELD: Representative Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT
ROFIN-SINAR: Faces Merger-Related Litigation in Michigan
ROTUNDA CONDOMINIUMS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Reyes" Suit

RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Must Face Misdemeanor Probationers' Suit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Gernandt" Suit Stayed Against Non-Debtors
SELECT COMFORT: "Azimpour" Class Action Pending
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: No Motion to Certify Class Filed
SKULLCANDY INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate 2 Complaints

SURFSTITCH: Melbourne Law Firm Mulls Shareholder Class Action
SHELL OIL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOTHEBY'S: "Graham" Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Settles Class Action Over Credit Card Data Risk
STERICYCLE INC: Class Action Pending in Pennsylvania

SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Settlement Conference Scheduled in May
TACO BELL: Expert's Analysis on Fee Award Critical, Court Says
TEAM HEALTH: Opposition to Fee Application Due June 30
TELEXFREE INC: Scam Participants Ordered to Return Money
THERANOS INC: Walgreens Ends Partnership Amid Class Actions

TILE SHOP: Court Rules on Discovery in Retirement Fund Suit
TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Hearing Set for July 27
TRACY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in "Zolandz" Suit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: June 30 Hearing Set on Video Depositions

UNITED RECOVERY: July 26 Initial Status Hearing Set in "Hurt"
UNITED SERVICES: Class-Action Sanctions to Impact Other Cases
UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Sought in "Johnson" Case v. Treasury
UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Loses Bid to Moot TCPA Class Action
UTZ QUALITY: Claims "Natural" Food Labeling Suits Lawyer-Driven

VITAL THERAPIES: Response to Amended Suit Due July 1
WESTERN DIGITAL: Court Dismissed Two Merger Class Suits
XPO LOGISTICS: To Pay $235,000 in Plaintiff Counsel Fees
WAYFAIR INC: "Dingee" Class Suit Dismissed
WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Carson" Class Suit in C.D. Calif.

WESTLAKE FINANCIAL: Settles Robocall Class Action
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces ERISA Class Action in Oregon
WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settlement Conference Held in "Reyes"

* Education Dep't Proposes New Rules Following College Fraud
* High Court Rulings to Impact ERISA, Securities Class Actions
* Therium Mulls Class Action Against Closet Indexers in Europe


                            *********


A1 SOLAR POWER: Bell Claims Tossed; Waterbury Claims Survive
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STEVE WATERBURY; and KATHY BELL; Plaintiffs,
v. A1 SOLAR POWER INC.; and AMERICAN PRO ENERGY; Defendants, Case
No. 15cv2374-MMA (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael M. Anelo granted
in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The judge ruled
as follows:

          -- As to plaintiff Kathy Bell's claims, the motion to
             dismiss was granted and Bell's claims were dismissed
             without prejudice.

          -- As to plaintiff Steve Waterbury's claims, the motion
             to dismiss was denied.

          -- The defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs'
             class definitions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
             Procedure Rule 12(f) was denied.

          -- The defendants' motion for a more definite statement
             pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
             12(e) was denied.

Judge Anelo also granted the plaintiffs' request for leave to
amend the complaint as to claims that were dismissed without
prejudice.  The plaintiffs were given 14 days within which to file
a Second Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Anelo's June 7, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/v1KtQV from Leagle.com.

The putative class action was filed by the plaintiffs on October
20, 2015 against A1 Solar Power Inc. and American Pro Energy.  On
November 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed the First Amended
Complaint, alleging the defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Steve Waterbury, Kathy Bell, Plaintiffs, represented by John Peter
Kristensen, Kristensen Law Group.

A1 Solar Power Inc., American Pro Energy, Defendants, represented
by David Robert Socher -- david@drsocher.com -- David R. Socher,
Attorney at Law, PC.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: 2017 Trial Date in King Digital Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Activision Blizzard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has set a
trial date of May 1, 2017, in the class action related to the King
Initial Public Offering.

On November 2, 2015, Activision and King Digital Entertainment plc
("King"), an interactive mobile entertainment company, entered
into a Transaction Agreement (the "Transaction Agreement") under
the terms of which Activision would acquire King (the "King
Acquisition") and King would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company. On February 23, 2016, Activision completed the King
Acquisition.

Beginning on March 17, 2015, purported securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco, against King, certain of its
directors and executive officers and underwriters of the King IPO.
The lawsuits were brought by purported shareholders of King
seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the King IPO.  The lawsuits
were consolidated. Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
seek unspecified damages and other relief. The court has set a
trial date of May 1, 2017.  The Company has not recorded a
liability in relation to these lawsuits and believes that the
claims are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Still Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
Company is awaiting the court's decision on the motion to dismiss
the case, City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset
Management Corp., et al.

On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City
of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management
Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC,
Mr. Erbey and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged
conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's
relationship and transactions with Residential, Altisource, Home
Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation,
NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen, including allegations
that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature of
relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii)
that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair
process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action
seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the
putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's
and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only
defendants who have been served with the complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of
Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. On May 15,
2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to
file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015, and setting
a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on June 19, 2015.

"On July 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was
completed on September 3, 2015, and we are awaiting a decision
from the court on the motion," the Company said.

"We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time,
we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter,
nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any."


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Defendants' Reply Briefs Due July 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case,
Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et al., defendants
are required to file any reply briefs to the plaintiffs' response
on or before July 1, 2016.

The Company said, "On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class
action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of
the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under
the caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al.,
15-cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, Mr. Erbey
and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by,
among other things, making materially false statements and/or
failing to disclose material information to the Company's
shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions
with AAMC, Ocwen and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These
alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the
defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on
Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,
including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,
that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating
state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's
lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains
allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents
were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully
the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between
the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the
detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among
other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class
in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees
and expenses."

"In May 2015, two of our purported shareholders filed competing
motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for
selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition
and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with
respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an
order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and
denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

"On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. Our motion to dismiss the amended complaint was due on
March 22, 2016.

"On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the action. The plaintiffs are required to file a
response to the defendants' motion to dismiss on or before May 20,
2016, and the defendants are required to file any reply briefs to
the plaintiffs' response on or before July 1, 2016.

"We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action. At this time, we are not able to
predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate
the range of possible loss, if any."

Altisource Residential Corporation is a Maryland REIT focused on
acquiring, owning and managing single-family rental properties
throughout the United States.


AMERICAN FAMILY MUTAL: "Henn" Case Goes to Neb. Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROSEMARY HENN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 8:15CV257 (D. Neb.),
Judge Joseph F. Bataillon certified the following question of law
to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska:

          "May an insurer, in determining the "actual cash value"
          of a covered loss, depreciate the cost of labor when
          the terms "actual cash value" and "depreciation" are
          not defined in the policy and the policy does not
          explicitly state that labor costs will be depreciated?"

A full-text copy of Judge Bataillon's June 7, 2016 certificate is
available at https://is.gd/4FMNrd from Leagle.com.

In the putative class action, the plaintiff sought to represent a
class of insureds whose payments for "actual cash value" were
reduced by American Family Mutual Insurance Company through
depreciation of costs for labor from June 1, 2005 through the date
of trial of the action.

Rosemary Henn, Plaintiff, represented by Eric R. Chandler, LAW
OFFICE OF ERIC R. CHANDLER, Erik D. Peterson, MEHR, FAIRBANKS LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, M. Austin Mehr, MEHR, FAIRBANKS LAW FIRM, pro
hac vice & Philip G. Fairbanks, MEHR, FAIRBANKS LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Bartholomew L. McLeay -- bart.mcleay@kutakrock.com -- KUTAK,
ROCK LAW FIRM, Brooke H. McCarthy -- brooke.mccarthy@kutakrock.com
-- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM & Michael S. McCarthy --
michael.mccarthy@faegrebd.com -- FAEGRE, BAKER LAW FIRM.


AQUALON: Settles Race Discrimination Class Action for $175,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Hussein, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that a
subsidiary of Covington-based specialty chemical company Ashland
agreed to pay $175,000 to more than 660 African-American job
applicants who claimed the subsidiary engaged in race bias in
hiring.

The class of job applicants claimed that Aqualon, a company that
develops liquid thickening compounds, used a hiring test that has
a discriminatory impact on black applicants, according to the U.S.
Labor Department.

Job seekers applied for entry-level transition operator positions
at the company's Hopewell, Virginia plant between October 2011 and
September 2012.

The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs found statistically significant disparities in the hiring
of black and white applicants for the same entry-level positions.
Aqualon disputes the statistical findings and denies any
wrongdoing or unlawful conduct.

The agency claimed that Aqualon didn't establish that the hiring
test, known as WorkKeys, was job-related and consistent with
business necessity. The company said the claim was moot because
the job for which the test was used no longer exists.

Aqualon said it had already hired four of the rejected black
applicants.

"We made a business decision to bring to an end a costly three-
year-old audit," said Ashland's attorney, Colleen Lewis, a lawyer
with Dinsmore & Shohl in Downtown Cincinnati, in a statement. "The
company is pleased to conclude this matter and is committed to
being an equal employment opportunity employer that values
diversity and inclusion."

The settlement was the second by the agency in the past month
involving a federal contractor's use of an allegedly invalidated
hiring test.


ARANGO PA: "Zait" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
Eliangela Zait, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Claudia G. Arango, MD, P.A., a Florida professional association,
and Claudia G. Arango, M.D., individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-22056-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney fees for willful violations of overtime pay provisions
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant owns and/or operates a medical practice where the
Plaintiff was employed as an office staff. Zait claims to be
denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     Law Office of Daniel T. Feld, P.A.
     20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Tel: (786) 923-5899
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

          - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     Mamane Law LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Telephone 305-773-6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


BANK OF AMERICA: LD Construction Files Anti-Trust Suit
------------------------------------------------------
LD Construction LLC, LDLJ Associates, L.P., Lawrence W. Gardner,
and David Gardner, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America Corporation,
Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital
Inc., BNP Paribas, S.A., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Citigroup,
Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Limited, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG,
Credit Suisse International, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. , The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc. , Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Bank USA,
Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P., Goldman Sachs
International, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Securities
(USA) Inc., Icap Capital Markets LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities PLC, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley Capital Services LLC,
Morgan Stanley Derivative Products Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
International PLC, Morgan Stanley Bank International Limited, The
Royal Bank Of Scotland Group PLC, Royal Bank Of Scotland PLC, RBS
Securities Inc., Tradeweb Markets LLC, UBS AG and UBS Securities
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04239 (S.D. N.Y., June 7, 2016),
seeks treble damages and injunctive relief for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

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

Defendants purchased swaps directly from defendant Citibank, N.A.
and allege that they are unable to participate in exchange trading
of swaps due to the anti-competitive suppression of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
     555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: 212-752-5455
     Email: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: 206-623-7292
     Facsimile: 206-623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Faces $30MM Penalty for Overcharging FX Trades
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shreya Agarwal, writing for Forbes.com, reports that Bank of New
York Mellon will pay a $30 million penalty after the SEC found
over a decade of violations in its foreign exchange business.

According to the SEC, from at least 2000 to 2011, the BNY misled
and overcharged some clients in its "Standing Instructions"
program. Under the program, the bank offered to "automatically
process and execute the clients' FX trades without supervision" or
direct involvement from clients.  The bank explicitly promised to
execute these trades according to the "best execution" standards
and at the "best rates" to maximize the proceeds on the foreign
exchange trades.

Instead, the SEC says, BNY used the program as an opportunity to
earn more on each transaction by executing the trades at the
highest reported interbank rate for the day if the client was
buying the foreign currency, and at the lowest if the client was
selling currency.  The bank would then send the summary of
transactions to clients including the date of each transaction and
the rate assigned by the bank, while leaving out the transaction
timestamp and the how the specific rate was assigned, the
documents say.

"We are pleased to put these legacy FX matters behind us, which
was in the best interest of our company and our constituents,"
Colleen Anne Krieger, a spokeswoman for the bank, said.  In 2015,
Bank agreed to pay $714 million to settle the foreign exchange
issue, out of which, DOJ and New York State would receive $167.5
million each, and $335 million will go to settle the customer
class action litigation.

According to the SEC, the Standing Instruction service was bank's
most profitable FX product as its sales margins were generally
"substantially" higher than on the FX transactions in the same
currencies, in which the clients negotiated for the best price for
themselves.


BEST BUY: "Nunez" Suit Over False Discounts Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Randy Nunez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Best Buy Co., Inc. and
Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendants, Civil No. 15-3965 (DWF/SER) (D.
Minn.), Judge Donovan W. Frank granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and dismissed the complaint
without prejudice.

The putative class action was filed by Randy Nunez against Best
Buy Co., Inc. and Best Buy Stores, L.P. after Nunez purchased a
microwave from a Best Buy store in San Diego, California.  Nunez
alleged that he purchased the microwave based on his belief that
Best Buy had discounted its price.  But, Nunez claimed, Best Buy
was in fact engaging in deceptive advertising by misrepresenting
the "regular" price of the microwave.  He alleged that this
misrepresentation was part of a broad scheme of fraudulent price
advertising that Best Buy implemented from its corporate offices
in Richfield, Minnesota, in violation of various Minnesota and
California laws.

Judge Frank found that the First Amended Complaint failed to plead
fraud with particularity and dismissed the complaint without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Frank's June 7, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/LAUC79 from Leagle.com.

Randy Nunez, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Kirksey Wood, Jr.,
Wood Law Firm, LLC, pro hac vice, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. --
ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,
pro hac vice, Eric N Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP, Erin Green Comite, pro hac vice, Gary F. Lynch
-- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,
pro hac vice, Joseph P Guglielmo, pro hac vice, Karen Hanson
Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP &
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendants, represented
by Anne M Lockner -- alockner@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan
LLP, Michael A Geibelson -- mgeibelson@robinskaplan.com -- Robins
Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Seth A Nielsen --
snielsen@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP.


BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Case in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------
Biolase, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 24, 2016,
a purported class action lawsuit entitled Dr. Charles Shulruff v.
Biolase, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02533, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
case alleges that the Company violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other related Illinois state
statutes, by sending unsolicited marketing communications via fax
machine to a Chicago dentist, Dr. Shulruff.  The plaintiff and his
counsel seek to certify a nation-wide class of comprised of other
dentists who received the same or similar faxes from BIOLASE.
BIOLASE responded to the case on April 14, 2016, and denied
liability on all claims.  BIOLASE also denies that class
certification is appropriate.  The case is still in its early
stages and no discovery or substantive motion practice has yet
been conducted.

BIOLASE, Inc. is a medical device company that develops,
manufactures, markets, and sells laser systems in dentistry and
medicine and also markets, sells, and distributes dental imaging
equipment, including cone beam digital x-rays and CAD/CAM intra-
oral scanners, in-office, chair-side milling machines and three-
dimensional ("3-D") printers.


BIRCHMOUNT RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Brookfield Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the class-action lawsuit filed by
a team of shareholders of Birchmount Resources Ltd., with Hockey
Hall-of-Famer Lanny McDonald as its representative plaintiff, was
set to be back in court in Calgary on June 15.  The lawsuit
alleges Brookfield Asset Management acquired Birchmount's
Hammerstone MegaQuarry using oppressive and misleading tactics,
usurping shareholders and leaving them with nothing.


BLUE CROSS: Settlement Deal in Shane Group Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHANE GROUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-
Appellee, CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS (15-1544); ADAC AUTOMOTIVE, et al.
(15-1551); SCOTT MANCINELLI (15-1552), Objectors-Appellants, Nos.
15-1544, 1551, 1552 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order
approving the settlement agreement, as well as the orders sealing
documents in the court record.  The case was remanded for an open
and vigorous examination of the settlement's fairness to the
class.

The Sixth Circuit held that the class action, which is based on
credible allegations that Michigan's largest health insurer --
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan -- engaged in price-fixing to
the detriment of millions of Michigan citizens, is a case in which
the public has a keen and legitimate interest.  The Sixth Circuit
thus found that the district court abused its discretion when it
sealed most of the parties' substantive filings from public view,
including nearly 200 exhibits and an expert report upon which the
parties based a settlement agreement that would determine the
rights of those millions of citizens.

"Class members who sought to object to the proposed settlement
thus had no ability to examine the bases of what they were
objecting to.  To compound matters, the district court then
approved the settlement without meaningful scrutiny of the
settlement's fairness to unnamed members of the class," the Sixth
Circuit said.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's June 7, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/J4yKl4 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Bryan R. Walters -- brwalters@varnumlaw.com -- VARNUM LLP,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, for ADAC Appellants.

Daniel A. Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Shane Group Appellees.

Constantine L. Trela, Jr. -- ctrela@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN
LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee Blue Cross.

ON BRIEF: Bryan R. Walters, Perrin Rynders --
prynders@varnumlaw.com -- VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for
ADAC Appellants.

Daniel A. Small, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington,
D.C., E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Rochester,
Michigan, for Shane Group Appellees.

Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Tacy F. Flint, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP,
Chicago, Illinois, Jennifer J. Clark -- jennifer.clark@sidley.com
-- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Blue Cross.


BNV HOME: "Tkachuk" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Oleg K. Tkachuk, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. BNV Home Care
Services, Inc., a/k/a BNV Home Care Agency, Inc., a/k/a BNV Home
Care Services, Inc. (BKLYN) and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02929 (E.D. N.Y., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime pay as well as liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Defendant provides home healthcare services in New York City where
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a home health aide worker.
Tkachuk claims to be denied overtime pay and wage statements.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
     2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11235
     Tel: (718) 339-0856


C1 FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------
C1 Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties to the
merger class action lawsuit have entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU").

On November 9, 2015, C1 Financial and its wholly owned bank
subsidiary, C1 Bank, entered into a definitive agreement and plan
of merger ("Agreement") with Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. ("OZRK") and
its wholly owned bank subsidiary, Bank of the Ozarks ("Ozarks
Bank"), whereby, subject to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement, C1 Financial will merge with and into OZRK with OZRK
surviving the merger in an all-stock transaction valued at
approximately $402.5 million, or approximately $25.00 per share of
C1 Financial common stock, subject to potential adjustments as
described in the Agreement.

The Company said, "As previously disclosed in our Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, following the
announcement of the merger with OZRK, a purported shareholder
class action complaint was filed in the Court of the Sixth Circuit
in Pinellas County, Florida (the "Court") against C1 Financial and
the individual members of C1 Financial's board of directors, and
OZRK (the "Action"). The Action generally alleged claims for
breach of fiduciary duty by the individual directors of C1
Financial and also alleges that C1 Financial and OZRK have aided
and abetted the C1 Financial board members' breaches of their
fiduciary duties. On January 22, 2016, the plaintiff in the Action
filed an amended complaint adding, among other things, allegations
of material misstatements and omissions concerning the content of
the preliminary Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by OZRK
on January 5, 2016. The Action requests, among other things, that
the Merger be enjoined."

"On February 22, 2016, the parties to the Action entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting the terms of an
agreement, subject to final approval by the Court and certain
other conditions, to settle the Action. Pursuant to the MOU, and
without admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental
disclosures are material or required to be made, defendants agreed
to make certain supplemental disclosures requested by plaintiffs
in the Action. The MOU further provides that, among other things,
(a) after the completion of reasonable confirmatory discovery the
parties will negotiate a definitive stipulation of settlement (the
"Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the Court for
review and approval; (b) the Stipulation will provide for
dismissal of the Action with prejudice; (c) the Stipulation will
include a general release of defendants of claims relating to,
among other things, the Merger and the Merger Agreement; and (d)
the settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation
of the Merger, class certification and final approval by the Court
after notice to C1 Financial's shareholders.

"Defendants believe that the allegations and claims in the
litigation are without merit and, if the settlement does not
receive final approval, intend to defend them vigorously.
Defendants are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate
the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims
that were or could have been asserted to rest. The settlement will
not affect the timing of the Merger or the amount of consideration
to be paid in the Merger."


CADIZ INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Cadiz Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that on April 24, 2015, a putative class
action lawsuit, entitled Van Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al., No.
2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM, was filed against Cadiz and certain of its
directors and officers ("Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California purporting
to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf
of all Cadiz shareholders, alleges that the Company's public
disclosures were inadequate in relation to the Cadiz Valley Water
Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (the "Water Project").
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The Company believes that the claims alleged in the purported
class action lawsuit are baseless and without merit and Cadiz
intends to vigorously defend against the action.  On December 2,
2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and a
hearing on the motion was held in late February 2016.  The Judge
has not yet issued a ruling and the Company cannot predict with
certainty the outcome of this proceeding.


CENTURY 21: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California woman who alleges she received several unsolicited
sales calls from Century 21 Real Estate, despite her number being
listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, has filed a lawsuit
against the company.

James Tuthill, an attorney specializing in telecom and who has
taught telecommunications law at UC Berkeley School of Law, said
this case is a good example of how violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act have become all too common for consumers.

"Everyone knows that violations of the federal Do Not Call law
have become commonplace.  The violations are flagrant, repeated
and daily intrusions into the lives of millions of Americans," Mr.
Tuthill told Legal Newsline.

"For far too long, the federal regulators charged with enforcement
of the law have ignored and refused to fulfill their
responsibility and hold open and notorious perpetrators
accountable.  This lawsuit is a welcome challenge to these
everyday violations which for far too long have been permitted,"
said Mr. Tuthill.

Carolyn Navarro filed the class action suit in Los Angeles federal
court against Century 21 Real Estate LLC.  Ms. Navarro and others
in the suit are requesting $500 in statutory damages in the first
cause of action for "negligent violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act."

In the second cause of action, "knowing and/or willful violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act," up to $1,500 for each
violation is being sought, according to the suit.

In the suit, Ms. Navarro claims that beginning in November,
Century 21 contacted her home phone number, a number she had
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, in an effort to
sell her the company's real estate services.

Ms. Navarro alleges in the suit that she received several calls
and did not give written consent prior to receiving the calls.
Navarro also states she did not have an established business
relationship with the company at the time of the calls nor were
the calls made for emergency purposes.

The suit also claims that Ms. Navarro repeatedly requested the
calls to stop and that she contacted Century 21 in writing, asking
to be removed from the company's call list.

"There is a lot of TCPA litigation out there both because people
find the calls annoying and because there are statutory damages
for certain types of calling," Chris Hoofnagle, adjunct professor
of Law and Faculty Director at the University of California
Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, told Legal Newsline.

Mr. Hoofnagle is also author of "Federal Trade Commission Privacy
Law and Policy" and is licensed to practice law in California and
Washington, D.C.

"For me what is interesting about the case is the idea that in
order for a consumer to investigate this kind of case, they have
to get to discovery," he said.

"The plaintiff suspects that she has been called by the same
people from a bunch of different phone numbers.  The only way to
verify this is to get to discovery or to have some kind of law
enforcement-style investigation, which is out of the reach of
ordinary consumers."


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Updates on Drinking Water Actions
---------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic
acids (PFOA) in drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a
series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by
an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel).
The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to
evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable
link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found
probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including
preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease,
ulcerative colitis and diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up
to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible
class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated
with the program, including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 in an escrow
account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement
agreement. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has
established the program to implement the medical panel's
recommendations and the registration process, as well as
eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and
testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are
being disbursed from the escrow account.

As of March 31, 2016, less than $1 million has been disbursed from
the escrow account related to medical monitoring.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue
to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in
water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking
Water Association (LHWA) and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At March 31, 2016, there were
approximately 3,500 lawsuits filed in various federal and state
courts in Ohio and West Virginia. These lawsuits are consolidated
in multi-district litigation (MDL) in Ohio federal court. Based on
the information currently available to the Company, the majority
of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated with high
cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

There are 30 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. In the third
quarter of 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for
individual trial. The first case (Bartlett v. DuPont) was tried to
a verdict on October 7, 2015. The Plaintiff alleged that PFOA in
drinking water caused her kidney cancer with causes of action for
negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The
jury found in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding $1.1 million in
damages for negligence and $0.5 million for emotional distress.
The jury found that DuPont's conduct did not warrant punitive
damages. DuPont Management believes that rulings made before and
during the trial resulted in several significant and meritorious
grounds for appeal, and has filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

The second case (Wolf v. DuPont), set for trial in March 2016, has
been settled for an amount well below the incremental cost of
preparing for trial. There are three more trials scheduled in
2016, with the next trial starting in May 2016.

The court announced that, starting in May 2017, 40 individual
plaintiff trials will be scheduled per year. This multi-year plan
pertains only to the cases claiming cancer, which represents
approximately 7% of the total number of cases in the MDL. The
remaining cases, comprising approximately 93% of the docket, will
remain inactive.

Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these lawsuits
and is defending itself vigorously. Except for the Wolf v. DuPont
case, no claims have been settled or resolved during the periods
presented.


CITIBANK: Settles Class Action Over Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports another settlement involves
customers calling into CitiBank.

"You know, you call to 800 numbers, it says calls can be recorded
for quality control.  In this case, that wasn't on there," hardy
says that's the allegation.

The company is accused of not informing customers that they were
being recorded, which would be a privacy violation.

There's a small window -- parts of April and May of 2013.  But a
it's big settlement: between $350 and $2,500 each.


CLUB MED SALES: "Lecorche" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Herve Jean-Paul Lecorche, and others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. Club Med Sales, Inc., a foreign corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22078-UU (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and as well as an additional
amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation with offices in Miami-Dade
County. Plaintiff claims to be denied overtime pay for hours
rendered in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
     5757 Blue Lagoon Dr, Suite 230
     Miami, FL 33126
     Telephone: 305-403-2000
     Facsimile: 305-459-3964
     E-Mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


COMMUNITY BANK: Court Dismissed 2 Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an
order of final judgment and dismissal on March 31, 2016, granting
final approval of the settlement reached in the two related class
actions, which were commenced on October 30, 2013 and May 23,
2014, respectively.  The two related cases alleged, on behalf of
similarly situated class members, that notices provided by the
Bank in connection with the repossession of automobiles failed to
comply with certain requirements of the Pennsylvania and New York
Uniform Commercial Code and related statutes.  The settlement,
which was resolved through mediation in September 2014, provides
for establishment of a settlement fund of $2.8 million in exchange
for release of all claims of the class members covered by these
actions. The litigation settlement charge of $2.8 million with
respect to the settlement of the class actions was previously
recorded in the third quarter of 2014.


DAIRY FARMERS: Dec. 2015 Deal in "Allen" Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALICE H. ALLEN, LAURANCE E. ALLEN, d/b/a Al-
lens Farm, GARRET SITTS, RALPH SITTS, JONATHAN HAAR, CLAUDIA HAAR,
RICHARD SWANTAK, PETER SOUTHWAY, MARILYN SOUTHWAY, REYNARD HUNT,
ROBERT FULPER, STEPHEN H. TAYLOR, and DARREL J. AUBERTINE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC. and DAIRY MARKETING
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:09-cv-230 (D. Vt.), Judge
Christina Reiss granted the parties' motion for final approval of
their December 2015 proposed settlement.

The proposed settlement was between the defendants Dairy Farmers
of America, Inc. (DFA) and Dairy Marketing Services, LLC (DMS) and
the DFA/DMS and non-DFA/DMS subclasses (collectively, the "Dairy
Farmers Class").  The Dairy Farmers Class is comprised of dairy
farmers who produced and sold raw Grade A milk in Federal Milk
Market Order 1 between January 1, 2002 to the present.  Defendant
DFA is a dairy cooperative that produces, processes, and
distributes raw Grade A milk. Defendant DMS is a milk-marketing
agency that was formed in 1999 by DFA and Dairylea Cooperative,
Inc. and is currently owned by DFA, Dairylea, and St. Albans
Cooperative Creamery, Inc.

Pursuant to the December 2015 proposed settlement, without an
admission of wrongdoing, the defendants have agreed to pay $50
million dollars to the Dairy Farmers Class in exchange for a
release of the claims asserted in this action as well as claims
"arising out of the conduct alleged in the Complaint" as to
specified released parties.  The defendants have agreed to non-
retaliation safeguards for the Dairy Farmers Class; specific
protocols to increase class members' ability to leave DFA/DMS
without penalty; the provision of a milk marketing grace period in
the event a dairy farm is terminated from DFA/DMS; disclosure of
certain financial information; and a prohibition of non-
solicitation agreements, which allegedly prevented class members
from freely leaving their cooperatives and joining competing
cooperatives.

A full-text copy of Judge Reiss' June 7, 2016 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/kBnGPx from Leagle.com.

Alice H. Allen, Laurance E. Allen, Garret Sitts, Ralph Sitts,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq. --
amanitsky@lynnlawvt.com -- Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Manitsky, P.C.,
Brent W. Johnson, Esq. -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Danyll W. Foix, Esq. -
- dfoix@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Emily
J. Joselson, Esq. -- ejoselson@langrock.com -- Langrock Sperry &
Wool, LLP, Gregory J. Commins, Jr. -- gcommins@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Kit A. Pierson --
kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Lisa B. Shelkrot, Esq. -- lshelkrot@langrock.com --
Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Robert G. Abrams, Esq. --
rabrams@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice,
Robert J. Brookhiser, Esq. -- rbrookhiser@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice & Terry L. Sullivan, Esq. --
tsullivan@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Jonathan Haar, Claudia Haar, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew D.
Manitsky, Esq., Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Manitsky, P.C., Benjamin D.
Brown, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice,
Brent W. Johnson, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro
hac vice, Daniel A. Small, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, David A. Balto, Esq., The Law Offices of David
A. Balto, Emmy L. Levens, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, George F. Farah, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC & Kit A. Pierson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Richard Swantak, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Manitsky,
Esq., Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Manitsky, P.C. & Benjamin D. Brown,
Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Esq.,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Danyll W. Foix,
Esq., Baker & Hostetler LLP, David A. Balto, Esq., The Law Offices
of David A. Balto, Emmy L. Levens, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Kit A. Pierson, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Robert G. Abrams, Esq., Baker &
Hostetler LLP.

Peter Southway, Marilyn Southway, Reynard Hunt, Robert Fulper,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq., Lynn, Lynn,
Blackman & Manitsky, P.C. & Benjamin D. Brown, Esq., Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Esq., Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Daniel A. Small, Esq., Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, David A. Balto, Esq.,
The Law Offices of David A. Balto, Emmy L. Levens, Esq., Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, George F. Farah, Esq.,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Kit A. Pierson, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Stephen H. Taylor, Darrel J. Aubertine, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by Brent W. Johnson, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, Daniel J. Smith, Northeast Dairy Compact Commission &
Richard T. Cassidy, Esq., Hoff Curtis.

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Dairy Marketing Services, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Amber L. McDonald, Esq, Baker & Miller
PLLC, pro hac vice, Carl R. Metz, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP,
pro hac vice, Ian P. Carleton, Esq., Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C.,
Jonathan B. Pitt, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice,
Kevin Hardy, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren
Collogan, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, R. Jeffrey
Behm, Esq., Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C., Steven R. Kuney, Esq.,
Williams & Connolly LLP & W. Todd Miller, Esq., Baker & Miller
PLLC.

Vermont Attorney General's Office, Amicus, represented by Ryan G.
Kriger, Esq., Vermont Office of the Attorney General.


DARLING CABARET: Must Report Dancers' Names, "Arreaga" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled ADRIANNA ARREAGAS,
Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DARLING CABARET, LLC D/B/A THE RED LEOPARD, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00495-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff requests that this Court: (1) adopt the attached
"Consent Notice to Become Party Plaintiff; and (2) order Defendant
to disclose to Plaintiff the names and last known mailing
addresses of all persons that danced as exotic entertainers at The
Red Leopard in Satellite Beach, Florida at any time during a
three-year period before the Complaint was filed within 20 days of
the Court's Order permitting this case to proceed as a collective
action.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated exotic entertainers for the Defendant share common
questions of law and fact that binds them together as victims of
Defendant's illegal policy and practice of refusing to pay minimum
wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CQdSehG3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam B. Kenner, Esq.
          KENNER & CUMMINGS, PLLC
          175 SW 7th Street, Suite 2410
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 384 7370
          Facsimile: (305) 384 7371
          E-mail: Adam@Kennercummings.com


DOTHAN, AL: Faces Class Action Over Special Judges Appointment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Griffin, writing for Dothan Eagle, reports that according to
a class action lawsuit filed on June 13 by a local bondsman, the
City of Dothan has failed to follow state law when appointing
special municipal judges, calling into question the resolution of
a significant number of cases heard by the judges.

The suit was filed on June 13 in U.S. District Court by Rickey
Stokes, who was convicted of unlawful imprisonment in September of
2014 by special appointed judge Carl Chamblee, Jr.

According to the suit, the city's mayor is the only person
authorized to appoint special municipal judges, who are appointed
to hear cases when the local municipal judge recuses herself due
to an absence, conflict of interest or other reasons.  For many
years -- no one is sure how long -- the city manager has been
authorized to make the appointment in lieu of the mayor.

"By Dothan's own admission, and under Alabama law generally, any
actions taken or orders entered by a Special Municipal Judge which
has not been properly appointed . . . are void ab initio," states
the suit, filed on behalf of Stokes by Dothan attorneys Derek
Yarbrough and Stephen Etheredge.

Ab initio is a legal term that means "from the beginning."

The suit argues the city is liable for anything that happened to
defendants after the alleged unlawful appointment of a special
judge, including confinement, fees, fines, drug and alcohol
treatment which incurred additional costs, appeal costs and other
costs.

"Because the special municipal judges lacked any jurisdiction and
their orders were and are void, the fees and fines assessed
pursuant to their orders, all probation fees assessed pursuant to
their probation orders, and all amounts necessary to effect
appeals of their orders . . . were and are illegal deprivations of
property effected under color of state law," the suit states.

"Further, any members who have served time in custodial
confinement were unlawfully deprived of their liberty under color
of state law."

The suit seeks damages including costs incurred by the potential
defendants in defending the case, fines and fees paid, and asks
the court to determine the city's financial liability for
defendants who were confined.

The class action suit only includes potential members who paid
fines, incurred other costs or were confined in Dothan due to the
orders of a special municipal judge since June 13, 2014, when
Chamblee was appointed to hear the case involving Stokes.

City Manager Mike West said he did not know how long the practice
of allowing the city manager to appoint in lieu of the mayor has
existed, but it has been in place since at least late 2004, when
he arrived.

When there is a need for a special appointed Judge, the local
municipal judge uses a city-created form.  The local judge
nominates, or suggests a special appointed judge, and signs the
form. It is then submitted to city administration.  There are
signature places for the mayor and city manager at the bottom of
the page, but there is language on the form that indicates West
can sign off on the appointment in lieu of the mayor according to
Title 12, Section 14-34 of the Alabama Code. However, the code
section does not authorize anyone other than the mayor to make the
appointment.

The section reads:

"In the event of the absence from the municipality, death,
disability of disqualification of a municipal judge for any
reason, the mayor of the municipality shall have the authority to
designate a person, licensed to practice law in the state and a
qualified elector of the state, not otherwise employed in any
capacity by the municipality, to serve as acting municipal judge
with all power and authority of a duly appointed municipal judge."

City Manager Mike West said on June 13 that the city has already
changed its procedure regarding special municipal judges and has
filed a motion to remand Stokes' case back to municipal court.
Stokes' appeal of his 2014 conviction was scheduled to be heard in
Houston County Circuit Court.

"Obviously the city will comply with what the rules are,"
Mr. West said.  "There was nothing to give me any indication, or
that would have led me to believe that this was something
improper.  Someone sends me over a form that looks official, it
quotes statutes and it says I sign in lieu of the mayor. There was
no need to question that."

"There is no reason to think the appointments would have been any
different," Mr. West said.

Mr. West said he has not seen the class action suit filed on
June 13 and could not respond to the legal ramifications.

"That is up to the attorneys and the courts," he said.

It is not known how many cases this could affect.  District 2
Commissioner Amos Newsome was convicted of misdemeanor assault by
a special municipal judge in April. He has appealed the
conviction.

Once the City of Dothan is officially served, it will have several
days to respond in U.S. District Court.


DS WATERS: Sept. 29 Final Approval Hearing on "Eddings" Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Vince Chhabria entered order in class action lawsuit styled
CHRIS EDDINGS, KENDALL HEATH, and LINO GONZALEZ, as individuals,
on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, the Plaintiffs, v. DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC., a
corporation; DS SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation; COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02576-VC (N.D. Cal.), granting
preliminary approval of a settlement agreement reached by the
parties, and granting provisional certification of the settlement
class.

Accordingly, for purposes of settlement only, the Court certifies
the following Settlement Class:

"All individuals who worked as Costco Sales Representatives for DS
Services of America, Inc. (DSS) at any Costco location in
California from February 19, 2011, through preliminary approval of
the Settlement (Class Members)."

The Court appoints Christopher Eddings, Kendall Heath, and Lino
Gonzalez as the Class Representatives.  The Court appoints
Alexander Krakow + Glick LLP, Kyle Todd of the Law Offices of Kyle
Todd, and Daniel O'Neil-Ortiz, as Class Counsel. Michael Morrison
is appointed as Lead Class Counsel.  Simpluris, Inc., is appointed
as the Claims Administrator.

A hearing shall be held on Sept. 29, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., to
determine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement and whether it should be approved finally by the Court.
The hearing may be postponed, adjourned, or rescheduled by order
of the Court without further notice to the class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZLu2c5YH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle J. Todd, Esq.
          Daniel O'Neil-Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
          611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Telephone: 323 208 9171
          E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401

The Defendant is represented by:

          Catherine M. Dacre, Esq.
          Justin T. Curley, Esq.
          Emily E. Barker, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2930
          Telephone: (415) 397 2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397 8549
          E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com
                  jcurley@seyfarth.com
                  ebarker@seyfarth.com


DSW INC: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California woman is suing an shoe retailer claiming it used
deceptive and misleading advertising to market the exclusive
merchandise it sells online and in its stores.

Amy Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 31 against DSW Inc., alleging
violation of unfair competition laws and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, DSW intentionally misrepresents prices
for products manufactured and sold exclusively for it, claiming
they are steeply discounted.  However, the suit claims the
discounts are misleading because the products are only sold at DSW
and never for the alleged suggested retail prices.

Ms. Evans seeks a jury trial, restitution for damages and
disgorgement of unjust enrichment.  She is represented by four
attorneys from Tycko & Zavareei: Kristen Law Sagafi and Martin D.
Quinones in Oakland, and Hassan A. Zavareei and Jeffrey D. Kaliel
in Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-03791


ERICKSON INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $18.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Manning, writing for The Oregonian, reports that
Portland aviation company Erickson Inc. and the private equity
company that controls it have tentatively agreed to pay $18.5
million to settle a shareholder's class-action lawsuit, according
to court documents.

Edward Montgomery, an Erickson pilot and shareholder, in 2014 sued
his company alleging the Erickson board breached its fiduciary
duty to shareholders when it OK'ed Erickson's 2013 acquisition of
Evergreen Helicopters.  Mr. Montgomery claims the Evergreen
acquisition was a thinly disguised bailout of ZM Private Equity,
Erickson's largest shareholder.

Mr. Montgomery claimed Quinn Morgan, then Erickson's chairman and
the head of ZM, personally negotiated the deal to ensure ZM got
repaid the $62 million it was owed by Evergreen.

"ZM Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by using Erickson
for their own personal benefit to the detriment of Erickson's
minority stockholders," Mr. Montgomery claimed.

The Evergreen deal has proven disastrous for Erickson, burdening
the company with a crushing load of $355 million in debt.
Erickson's stock has collapsed below $1 a share in recent weeks as
it struggles through business setbacks and a mounting liquidity
crisis.

Most of the $18.5 million settlement will be divvied up among
shareholders who held Erickson shares between March 18, 2013 and
June 16.  It is not nearly enough to cover the loss of value
suffered by shareholders as the stock Shareholders have taken a
beating.  Erickson's stock closed on June 13 at 76 cents, down
from $19.03 a share when Montgomery filed his suit.

The case was set to go trial in August.

Erickson, which has denied any wrongdoing, declined comment

Written into the settlement are new limits on Erickson's ability
to conduct major corporate purchases or sales, particularly
transactions that involve ZM.  Erickson will have to get approval
of a committee of independent Erickson boardmembers before it
moves ahead, according to the settlement document.
The settlement must be approved by a judge, which probably won't
happen until early fall.

The 800-employee company announced it had hired an investment
banking firm to advise it on a possible restructuring.
Jeff Roberts, the company's chief executive, acknowledged the
company has too much debt and not enough liquidity.


EZCORP INC: Objections to Discovery Bids Due June 29 in N.Y. Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
06834 (S.D.N.Y.), an Initial Pretrial Conference was held before
Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck on June 8, 2016.  Status
conference is scheduled for July 22 at 9 a.m.  Plaintiff's class
action discovery request was due June 15.  Parties' class action
Rule 26(a) information, and objections to discovery request are
due June 29.  Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's class discovery
request are due July 15.

"It is not a basis to object to class related discovery that it
also is relevant to the merits.  Parties to exchange outlines of
their positions for and against class certification so as to
identify what discovery is needed for class certification motion &
opposition.  Parties to cooperate re class discovery.  Remainder
of schedule to be set at next conf," according to a Minute Entry
in the case.

EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on August 22, 2014,
Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common
Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated
holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC).
The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel
(our former chief executive officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (our
former chief financial officer and former chief operating officer)
and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In general, the complaint alleges
that the implementation of certain strategic and growth
initiatives were less successful than represented by the
defendants, that certain of the Company's business units and
investments were not performing as well as represented by the
defendants and that, as a result, the defendants' disclosures and
statements about the Company's business and operations were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 17, 2014, the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan, also
purporting to be the holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock and
acting for itself and on behalf of other similarly situated
holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC). The complaint names EZCORP, Inc., Mr.
Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither as defendants, but also names Mr.
Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership. The complaint likewise
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, alleging generally that (1) EZCORP and the officer
defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the business and
prospects, and compliance history, of the Company's online lending
operations in the U.K. and the nature of the Company's consulting
relationship with entities owned by Mr. Cohen and the process the
Board of Directors used in agreeing to it, and (2) Mr. Cohen and
MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP,
participated in the preparation and dissemination of the Company's
disclosures and controlled the Company's business strategy and
activities.

On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff in the Automotive Machinists
Pension Plan action filed a motion to consolidate the Close action
and the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action and to appoint
the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan as the lead plaintiff. On
November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under
the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
1:14-cv-06834-ALC), and on January 26, 2015, appointed the lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

On March 12, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended
Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, alleging generally that:

* EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr.
Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's online lending operations in the U.K.
(Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance history;

* EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the nature of the Company's
consulting relationship with Madison Park LLC (as entity owned by
Mr. Cohen) and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing
to it;

* EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading, and
violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by failing to
properly recognize impairment charges with respect to the
Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond; and

* Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling
persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the Company's
alleged false and misleading statements and omissions.

On April 27 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, and the
parties submitted their respective supporting and opposing briefs.
On March 31, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. Specifically, it dismissed the
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims insofar as they were based on
(1) the alleged misstatements about the nature of and approval
process related to the Company's consulting relationship with
Madison Park, (2) the alleged misstatements regarding the
impairment of the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond, and
(3) some of the alleged misstatements about Cash Genie. The
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims survived the motions to
dismiss insofar as they were based on certain alleged
misstatements about Cash Genie. The Section 20(a) claims also
survived the motions to dismiss.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
continue to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims,"
the Company said.

EZCORP is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin, Texas.
It is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and Mexico.


EZCORP INC: June 22 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:15-cv-00608 (W.D. Tex.), Judge Sam Sparks will hold a hearing
for June 22, 2016, on the motion to dismiss the Amended Class
Action Complaint.

EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on July 20, 2015, Wu
Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common
Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated
holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS).

The Company said, "The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc.,
Stuart I. Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and Mark E.
Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer) and asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The original
complaint related to the Company's announcement on July 17, 2015
that it will restate the financial statements for fiscal 2014 and
the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the
Company issued materially false or misleading statements
concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and
prospects and that the Company misrepresented the financial
performance of the Grupo Finmart business."

"On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these
2 lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be
consolidated.

"On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the
two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective
counsel appointed as co-lead counsel.

On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A
Common Stock between November 6, 2015 and October 20, 2015. The
Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout
the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal
controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of
Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither,
as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert
any claims against Mr. Grimshaw.

On February 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the defendants' reply was due on
May 11, 2016.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
defend vigorously against all allegations and claims," the Company
said.

EZCORP is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin, Texas.
It is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and Mexico.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: To Oppose Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that First
Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs' allegations and
intend to oppose class certification.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth
Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015
by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege
that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and
sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not
comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees,
including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was
not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of
Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with
applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles. The
plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated plaintiffs
who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages
under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act. First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the
plaintiffs' allegations and intend to oppose class certification.
The Bank has also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract,
set-off and recoupment against the plaintiffs, individually, and
as representatives of the putative class.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Lin-Fisher, writing for Beacon Journal, reports that the
shareholders of both FirstMerit Corp. and Huntington Bancshares
have approved the proposed merger of the two banks.

In separate special meetings on June 13, held in Akron and
Columbus, shareholders approved the merger, the banks said in a
joint statement.

Columbus-based Huntington is acquiring FirstMerit in a $3.4
billion stock and cash deal that is expected to be completed in
the third quarter of this year.  The proposed merger still needs
approval from federal regulators.

"[June 13] marks an important milestone as we continue to proceed
smoothly with the merger process of combining Huntington and
FirstMerit," said Stephen D. Steinour, chairman, president and CEO
of Huntington, in the news release.  "I am delighted that
Huntington shareholders reacted positively to the opportunity that
this partnership creates for the future combined company, and am
looking forward to FirstMerit shareholders becoming Huntington
shareholders when the merger is complete."

"We are pleased that our shareholders overwhelmingly support the
merger with Huntington and what it means for the markets we
serve," said Paul G. Greig, chairman, president and CEO of
FirstMerit.  "I look forward to working with Huntington as our two
companies combine the best of both organizations to create a
stronger, market-leading regional bank for our customers and
employees."

In other news, both banks and their directors reached an agreement
to settle a class-action suit by shareholders looking to block the
proposed merger.  Terms of the agreement were not available and
there are still other pending class-action suits.  A University of
Akron law professor has said that lawsuits seeking to block
mergers are commonplace.


FLINT, MI: Hired Law Firm to Investigate Chubb Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Ridley, writing for MLive-The Flint Journal, reports that the
city of Flint agreed to pay up to $5,000 to an outside law firm to
investigate allegations made by former Interim City Attorney
Anthony Chubb.

Documents obtained by Mlive-The Flint Journal through the Freedom
of Information Act show City Attorney Stacy Erwin Oakes hired law
firm Foley & Lardner in March to represent the city, investigate
and respond to the allegations made by Mr. Chubb.

The documents do not outline the allegations and Mr. Chubb, who
resigned from the city effective June 10, declined to comment on
the situation.

The city has not yet responded to a Flint Journal FOIA request
seeking details of Mr. Chubb's claims.

The contract, signed by Erwin Oakes on March 29, agreed to pay the
law firm up to $5,000 for its services.

Erwin Oakes refused to address questions on Mr. Chubb during a
June 13 press conference.  City spokeswoman
Kristin Moore could not be reached for comment.

Mr. Chubb served as the interim-city attorney following former
City Attorney Pete Bade's resignation at the beginning of 2016.

He served in the interim capacity until Mayor Karen Weaver
appointed Stacy Erwin Oakes as the new city attorney.
Erwin Oakes' first day with the city was March 28, one day prior
to signing the contract with Foley & Lardner.

Following Erwin Oakes' addition, Mr. Chubb continued working with
the city as the deputy chief legal officer.

Mr. Chubb was at the center of a controversy within the
administration after former City Administrator Natasha Henderson
raised allegations of possible misconduct by Mayor Karen Weaver.

Ms. Henderson filed a federal lawsuit May 9 in Detroit U.S.
District Court claiming she was fired from her position after
asking the city attorney's office to investigate claims
Ms. Weaver may have been telling city staff and volunteers to send
potential water crisis donations to her own personal account,
rather than the fund managed by the Community Foundation of
Greater Flint.

The lawsuit claims the mayor's assistant, Maxine Murray, told
Henderson that she was specifically directed to tell donors and
potential donors step-by-step how to donate to the Karenabout
Flint fund through its website, rather than instruct them in the
steps to donate to the Community Foundation's fund.

Ms. Henderson claims she told the city attorney's office Feb. 9
that the redirection of the charity funds should be further
investigated by Mr. Chubb.

The lawsuit alleges Ms. Henderson reiterated her concerns in a
Feb. 10 email to Mr. Chubb, asking him to "promptly initiate an
investigation of this matter in your capacity."  She further asked
for advice on appropriate actions she could take to protect
employees from potential retaliation for reporting such
allegations.

Mr. Chubb allegedly replied, "I will take prompt action and advise
you later today."

However, Ms. Henderson claims she again emailed Mr. Chubb on
Feb. 12 after not receiving a further response again reached out
to the interim city attorney for an update, telling him "this is a
very serious matter."

The city has denied FOIA requests for emails that allegedly
outline Henderson's concerns, citing attorney-client privilege.
Mlive-The Flint Journal has appealed the denial.  No decision has
yet been made on the appeal.

However, despite the city's claims of privilege, the email
requested by The Flint Journal was printed and displayed on an
easel during a June 13 press conference with Erwin Oakes and
Okemos-based attorney Brendon Basiga.

Mr. Basiga, an attorney hired by Erwin Oakes to investigate
Henderson's allegations, said on June 13 that Mr. Chubb initially
began looking into the allegations made against the mayor by
Henderson.

The email on display at the press conference was sent Feb. 10 to
Mr. Chubb by Ms. Henderson.  It claimed the former city
administrator spoke with Ms. Murray inside a supply room of the
mayor's office.

Mr. Basiga interviewed Mr. Chubb, and he said the former city
attorney told him he hired outside counsel to review the
allegations against the mayor since the city attorney's office had
to recuse itself due to a potential conflict of interest.

The city has not disclosed if any findings were made by the
attorney hired by Mr. Chubb.  The city has not yet responded to a
FOIA request from Mlive-The Flint Journal seeking information on
the initial investigation launched by Chubb.

The city's response to a previous FOIA request from Mlive-The
Flint Journal seeking any contracts or retainers the city entered
into with outside law firms since the start of 2015 did not
include any agreements other than Mr. Basiga's to investigate
Henderson's claims.

Erwin Oakes said she hired Mr. Basiga in April to conduct the
investigation because she was seeking an attorney who would have
no anticipation of future work for the city moving forward.

Mr. Basiga, on June 13 said the firm hired by Mr. Chubb did
previous work for the city.

Ultimately, Mr. Basiga said he found no evidence of wrongdoing by
Weaver.


FONTERRA: Likely to Be in Black This Year, Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Gray, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reports that
Fonterra's loss-making Australian operation is likely be in the
black this year now the co-operative is paying a more realistic
milk price, chief executive Theo Spierings has said.

He told a special meeting of shareholders that Fonterra's three-
year "transformation" plan would put it in profit next year, but
with the Australian milk price at A$5/kg ($5.22/kg) a return to
profitability was likely to come sooner.

Fonterra, due to its contractual relationships, has had to match
the main dairy company in Australia -- Murray Goulburn -- which up
until recently was offering A$6/kg.

Mr. Spierings went on record last year as saying milk price paid
in Australia was too high and unreflective of market conditions.

Both Fonterra and Murray Goulburn are being investigated by the
ACCC -- Australia's equivalent of the Commerce Commission -- over
the notice and timing of the milk price cuts, which happened this
year.

In answer to a question, Mr. Spierings said the transformation
program in Australia was about "fixing the leaks" and improving
relationships with retailers.  "That journey alone would have
taken us above the water line next year, but with that reset in
the milk price right now, we are surfacing above the water
straight away," Mr. Spierings said.

But he said Fonterra was running into supply constraints in parts
of Victoria, the home of 80 per cent of Australia's export dairy
production.

The rebuilding of its Stanhope plant, in northern Victoria,
damaged by a major fire in 2014, meant Fonterra needed more milk
"and the competition landscape around Stanhope is completely
different".  Fonterra's main collection regions are Tasmania and
most parts of Victoria.

Murray Goulburn -- Fonterra's larger competitor in Australia --
said on April 27 that its A$5.60 farmgate milk price was no longer
achievable, revising it down to A$4.75 to A$5/kg.

On May 5, Fonterra Australia revised its farmgate milk price from
A$5.60 to A$5.  Murray Goulburn also heavily revised down its
earnings forecast for the 2015/6.  Its units -- listed on the ASX
last July -- slumped by more than A$1 from A$2.14 just before the
April 27 announcement.

Managing director Gary Helou and chief financial officer
Brad Hingle have resigned and there have been a string of
resignations from the board.  Investors have since launched a
class action against the company.

Fonterra had a contract with Bonlac Supply Co to buy milk from
farmers at a price not less than that offered by Murray Goulburn.
The basis of the ACCC's investigation is whether the firms misled
farmers.

The sudden drop in milk prices has caused a furore in the farming
community and on the political scene as Australia faces an
election in July.

At the June 10 special meeting, Fonterra's plan to alter its
governance structure was defeated as it failed to achieve 75 per
cent support.


FOUR CORNERS: Faces Class Action Over Loyalty Rewards Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
restaurant and tavern group, which operates nearly a dozen sites
sprinkled throughout the Loop and Chicago's North and Near West
sides, and which hopes to open a new restaurant in Chicago's
Maggie Daley Park, has been hit with a class action lawsuit,
alleging it left customers with no options to cash out or transfer
rewards credits toward free food and drink when the group
transitioned to a different customer loyalty rewards program.

On June 6, plaintiff Micah Riskin, identified in the lawsuit as a
resident of Cook County, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court
against the Chicago-based Four Corners Tavern Group, alleging the
company violated Illinois consumer fraud law and was unjustly
enriched in the process when it earlier this year abruptly ended
its participation in a loyalty rewards program administered by a
third party, in favor of a customized program unique to its own
branded establishments.

Mr. Riskin is represented in the action by attorneys Aron D.
Robinson and Jeffrey Arman, each of Chicago.

According to the lawsuit, Four Corners Tavern Group had
participated in and promoted customer participation in a loyalty
reward program, identified in the lawsuit as Spring Rewards,
beginning in early 2015.  The program, which relied on an app
downloaded to customers' smartphones, enabled patrons of Four
Corners' various bars to receive a $10 credit for every $250 spent
at a specific Four Corners establishment.

According to its website, Four Corners currently operates 11
establishments, identified as Benchmark, Schoolyard, WestEnd,
Kirkwood, Gaslight, Sidebar, Ranalli's, Highline, Federales,
Fremont and SteakBar.

According to the lawsuit, the reward points were specific to
individual bars, and could not be transferred to other
establishments.  For instance, money spent at Highline did not
count toward credits at Benchmark or any of Four Corners' other
establishments.

Mr. Riskin said he enrolled in Spring Rewards at Highline in March
2015. He also enrolled in the program at Four Corners' Benchmark
and Kirkwood locations, the lawsuit said.

However, in January 2016, Mr. Riskin said he received an email
from Four Corners informing him and others like him, enrolled in
the Spring Rewards program, that Four Corners was ending its
participation in Spring Rewards, in favor of a new customized, in-
house rewards program, identified in the lawsuit as My4C Points,
which it said "would perfectly suit our customers' needs."  The
email said customers had until the end of February to redeem any
"rewards" they had already earned through Spring Rewards.

Mr. Riskin said he had intentionally given those Four Corners bars
-- and Highline, in particular -- his business, to accumulate
points toward the reward credits.

However, he said he was short of receiving the credits at the time
the program was cancelled, including just $10 short of receiving
the credit at Highline, when the program was cancelled.

He alleged Four Corners needed to provide customers options for
either transferring reward points already earned into the new
program, or redeeming the points in some other way.

Mr. Riskin's complaint alleged the plaintiffs believe "hundreds or
thousands" of others potentially suffered similar loss when Four
Corners transitioned to the new rewards program.

The lawsuit asked the court to certify a class of additional
plaintiffs, and award unspecified compensatory damages, plus
attorney fees.

Earlier this year, Four Corners Tavern Group also was revealed as
the company the Chicago Park District had selected to operate a
new restaurant planned for Chicago's Maggie Daley Park.  According
to published reports, Park District officials have indicated that
restaurant could open sometime in 2017.


GENERAL CABLE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that plaintiff's appeal from
the lower Court's decisions to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
is pending.

The Company said, "Two civil complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on
behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory
Kenny, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian
Robinson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer. On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
the actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees
Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported
class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities
between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the "City of
Livonia Complaint"). The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims
under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of
the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that
we employed inadequate internal financial reporting controls that
resulted in, among other things, improper revenue recognition,
understated cost of sales, overstated operating income, net income
and earnings per share, and the failure to detect inventory lost
through theft; that we issued materially false financial results
that had to be restated on two occasions; and that statements of
Messrs. Kenny and Robinson that they had tested and found
effective our internal controls over financial reporting and
disclosure were false. The City of Livonia Complaint alleged that
as a result of the foregoing, our stock price was artificially
inflated and the plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with
their purchase of our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint sought
damages in an unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive
or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On January 27,
2015, the Court dismissed the City of Livonia Complaint, with
prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. On February 24, 2015, plaintiff
filed a motion to alter or amend the January 27, 2015 judgment and
for leave to file the proposed amended complaint, which the lower
Court also denied. On June 9, 2015, plaintiff appealed the lower
Court's decisions to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
appeal is currently pending."


GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over ABACUS 2007-AC1 Stayed Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 proceedings in a
securities class action lawsuit related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction have been stayed by the district court pending an
appellate court's decision.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group
Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the CDO market, the firm's conflict of interest
management, and the SEC investigation that led to Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) entering into a consent agreement with the SEC,
settling all claims made against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection
with the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction), pursuant to which GS&Co. paid $550 million of
disgorgement and civil penalties. The consolidated amended
complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group
Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its
affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages.

On June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on
Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice
from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims to
proceed. The district court granted class certification on
September 24, 2015, but the appellate court granted defendants'
petition for review on January 26, 2016. On February 1, 2016, the
district court stayed proceedings in the district court pending
the appellate court's decision.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Accords in 2008 and 2010 Suits Have Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 firm has
obtained preliminary court approval of the settlements reached in
these two class action lawsuits:

     (1) Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage
Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. and three current or
former Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class
action commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of
purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and
asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts
established by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. On
June 3, 2010, another investor filed a separate putative class
action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one
other offering and thereafter moved to further amend its amended
complaint to add claims with respect to two additional offerings.
On December 30, 2015, the district court preliminarily approved a
settlement covering both actions. The firm has paid the full
amount of the proposed settlement into an escrow account.

     (2) A class action was filed on September 30, 2010, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). On February
11, 2016, the district court preliminarily approved a settlement
resolving the action. The firm has reserved the full amount of the
proposed settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Force-Placed Insurance Has Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc., Litton
Loan Servicing LP (Litton), Ocwen Financial Corporation and Arrow
Corporate Member Holdings LLC (Arrow), a former subsidiary of
Group Inc., are defendants in a putative class action pending
since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York generally challenging the procurement manner
and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance arranged by Litton
when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance as required by
their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion,
unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair practices law
and RICO claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. On January
15, 2016, Group Inc. and Arrow were added as defendants to a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California based on substantially similar allegations,
asserting RICO claims and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, and seeking similar relief. On April 20, 2016,
the court preliminarily approved a settlement among Group Inc.,
Litton and Arrow and the plaintiffs in the action pending in the
Southern District of New York, which would resolve the remaining
claims in both actions. The firm has reserved the full amount of
its obligations under the proposed settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Solazyme Securities Case Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed on June 24, 2015 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In
addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Solazyme,
Inc. (Solazyme) and certain of its directors and officers. As to
the underwriters, the complaints generally allege misstatements
and omissions in connection with March 2014 offerings by Solazyme
of approximately $63 million of common stock and $150 million
principal amount of convertible senior subordinated notes, assert
claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on December 15, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss on February 12, 2016. GS&Co. underwrote 3,450,000 shares
of common stock and $150 million principal amount of notes for an
aggregate offering price of approximately $187 million.

According to a November 2015 Scheduling order in the case, NORFOLK
COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SOLAZYME, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02938-HSG (N.D. Cal.), a hearing on
Defendants' motion to dismiss was to be held May 12, 2016, at 2:00
p.m., or a date thereafter that is convenient for the Court.  A
copy of the Scheduling Order dated November 9, 2015, is available
at https://is.gd/VfTxUo from Leagle.com.


GOLDMAN SACHS: FireEye Securities Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 lawsuit related
to FireEye, Inc.'s securities offering is proceeding in court
after FireEye and its director and officer defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
was denied in April.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of
Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and
officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and
omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March
2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common
stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission.

On August 11, 2015, the court overruled the defendants' demurrers,
which sought to have the consolidated amended complaint dismissed.
On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs moved for class certification.
FireEye and its director and officer defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
which was denied on April 1, 2016.

GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of
approximately $172 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Cobalt Securities Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 firm and other
defendants continue to defend against the claims in the Cobalt
International Energy securities litigation.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its
officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group
Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of
shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and underwriters
(including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of
Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities class
action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas. The consolidated amended
complaint, filed on May 1, 2015, asserts claims under the federal
securities laws, seeks compensatory and rescissory damages in
unspecified amounts and alleges material misstatements and
omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a $1.67 billion
February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a $1.38 billion
December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes, a $1.00
billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, a $1.33
billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, and a $1.30
billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes. The
consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others, Group
Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with respect to
all five offerings. The consolidated amended complaint also seeks
damages from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an
underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $465 million, $690
million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately
$508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February
2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an
aggregate offering price of approximately $1.66 billion.

On January 19, 2016, the court granted, with leave to replead, the
underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss as to claims by
plaintiffs who purchased Cobalt securities after April 30, 2013,
but denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects. A copy of
the January 19 decision is available at https://is.gd/HwljwQ from
Leagle.com.  Defendants' ensuing motions to certify this order for
an interlocutory appeal were denied on March 14, 2016.  A copy of
the March 14 order is available at https://is.gd/hEZiM8 from
Leagle.com.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends ISDAFIX-Related Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc. is
among the defendants named in several putative class actions
relating to trading in interest rate derivatives, filed beginning
in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The second consolidated amended complaint,
filed on February 12, 2015, asserts claims under the federal
antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. On March 28, 2016, the district court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss as to the antitrust, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment claims, but dismissed the tortious
interference and implied covenant of good faith claims with
prejudice.

GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. on June 3, 2015, were among the
defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
certain ERISA employee benefit plans. As to the claims brought
against GS&Co. and Group Inc., the second amended complaint, filed
on April 6, 2016, generally alleges that the defendants violated
ERISA in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
foreign currency exchange markets, which caused losses to ERISA
plans for which the defendants provided foreign exchange services
or otherwise authorized the execution of foreign exchange
services. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as
well as restitution and disgorgement in an unspecified amount.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Consolidate Interest Rate Swap Case Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc.,
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs
Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in
putative antitrust class actions relating to the trading of
interest rate swaps, filed beginning in November 2015 in the U.S.
District Courts for the Southern District of New York and Northern
District of Illinois. The complaints generally allege a conspiracy
among the dealers and brokers since at least January 1, 2007 to
preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints
seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages
in an unspecified amount. On February 25, 2016, certain plaintiffs
in the New York court filed an amended complaint, and moved to
consolidate all pending actions in that court.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swaps Suit Filed in April 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc.,
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), GSI, GS Bank USA and GSFM are among
the defendants named in an antitrust action relating to the
trading of interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on April 18, 2016 by the
operator of a swap execution facility and certain of its
affiliates. The complaint asserts claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to preclude trading of interest
rate swaps on the plaintiffs' swap execution facility and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount.


HALYARD HEALTH: Parties in Prime Healthcare Case in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, et al., are engaged in discovery.

The Company said, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for, and
have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Prime Healthcare
Centinela, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al.,
(f/k/a Shahinian, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al.)
No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), filed on October 29, 2014.
In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative nationwide class
action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law in connection with our marketing and sale of
MicroCool surgical gowns. On February 6, 2015, we moved to dismiss
the complaint on multiple grounds. On July 10, 2015, the Court
issued an order on the motion to dismiss, dismissing the negligent
misrepresentation claim but permitting the remaining claims to
stand and proceed to discovery."

"On December 11, 2015, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint that added additional plaintiffs in California, Texas
and Rhode Island, named Halyard Health, Inc. as an additional
defendant, and extended the timeframe for the lawsuit to include
products sold after the Spin-off through December 2015. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery. We intend to continue
our vigorous defense of the matter."


HAMILTONS VALET: "Martins" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Martins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Hamilton's Valet Services, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, and Amilton Souza, individually, Defendants, 0:16-cv-
61216-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a Florida Corporation that operates a full service
valet parking company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida where
Plaintiff worked as a valet attendant.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Stern, Esq.
     Hazel Solis Rojas, Esquire
     LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
     E-mail: hsolis@workingforyou.com
     8333 NW 53rd Street, Suite 450
     Doral, FL33166
     Telephone: (561) 299-3703
     Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
     E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


HARTFORD, CT: Hotel Owners Mull Class Action Over Tax Burden
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Seay, writing for HartfordBusiness.com, reports that the
owner of the high-rise Radisson Hotel overlooking downtown
Hartford's stalled ballpark is suing the city, claiming it didn't
get the property-tax exemptions the city has granted its nearby
competitors.

50 Morgan Hospitality Group LLC, owners of the 18-story, 350-room
hotel at 50 Morgan St., filed suit May 23 in Hartford federal
court, citing breach of its constitutional right to equal
protection, according to court records and the plaintiff's
attorney.

In bringing its latest legal action against the city, the
Radisson's owner has laid bare an allegedly loose tax-forbearance
arrangement between the city and a handful of downtown commercial
landlords.

Moreover, other owners of downtown Hartford hotels say they are
closely watching the outcome not only of the Radisson lawsuit but
their own pending tax-abatement applications with the city.  At
least one rival hotel owner says he, too, will consider suing the
city if he doesn't receive the tax-relief he's seeking.

Rare legal challenge

The use of property tax breaks or incentives to encourage economic
development is not new to Hartford or other Connecticut cities and
towns, but a legal challenge questioning the fairness of such
incentives is rare.

According to the suit, the issue is that the Radisson --currently
owned by Florida hospitality owner/operator Inner Circle -- is
assessed on city property-tax rolls at $6.545 million, for which
its latest tax bill was $486,228.06.

However, the suit contends that three neighboring large downtown
hotels -- the Hilton Hartford on Trumbull Street; Hartford
Marriott Downtown on Columbus Boulevard; and the Residence Inn By
Marriott Hartford Downtown on Main Street -- "have been granted
tax exemptions by the [city] and are not required to pay any
taxes" despite each being valued at millions of dollars on city
tax rolls.

"The disparate tax treatment imposed by the [city] upon the
[Radisson] in comparison to the . . . three competitors," the suit
states, "is intentional but irrational and deprives the [Radisson
Hotel and its owners] of equal protection of the laws in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

According to the Radisson owner's New Haven attorney, John R.
Williams, his client has been unable to determine how the city and
its rivals crafted the tax exemptions, but it hopes to find out
during discovery.

"Everything is ad hoc," he said.  "There isn't a set plan.
Everybody is out cutting their own deal."

No taxes since 2012

The city assessor's office verified that none of the Ramada's
three downtown Hartford rivals has paid property taxes on their
land since at least 2012.

The reason, according to Jamie Bratt, the city's director of
planning and economic development, is that the Residence Inn and
Hilton Hartford rest on city land for which they pay the city
rent.  As such, they are not subject to real estate taxes for the
land.  But all three hotels are responsible for personal-property
levies on the value of furniture, fixtures and equipment in their
buildings, Ms. Bratt said.

According to city records, the most recent personal-property tax
bill for the Residence Inn was $66,441; Marriott Hartford,
$156,060; and Hartford Hilton, $118,990.

Some Hartford hotels also make payments in lieu of taxes to the
city, but their sums couldn't be determined at press time.
The Marriott Hartford, as part of the Adriaen's Landing
development that includes Front Street and the Connecticut
Convention Center, does not pay real estate property tax under a
15-year abatement that the hotel's owner negotiated with the city,
Ms. Bratt said.

The Radisson is one of three downtown hotels that have tax-
abatement applications pending with the city, Ms. Bratt said.  She
declined to identify the other two, citing privacy concerns for
the property owners.

Asked whether the Radisson suit could undermine city efforts to
negotiate future property-tax abatements, or even force the city
to revisit previous tax-aversion pacts, city hall spokesman
Brett Broesder said the city does not comment on pending
litigation.

Other legal issues

50 Morgan Hospitality Group LLC was formed in Aug. 2013, according
to the Secretary of the State's office, shortly before Inner
Circle became majority owner of the Radisson, after pumping in
$11.5 million for property renovations.  Inner Circle bought its
stake from Magilink Group, a South Korean company that purchased
the hotel out of foreclosure in 2010.

In Jan. 2014, the owners swapped the hotel's Ramada brand flag for
one from Radisson.

Inner Circle also reportedly is underway with converting some of
the property's upper rooms into apartments, many of which have
sweeping views of parts of downtown, including the new Dunkin'
Donuts Park.

The hotel's owner, which did not respond to a request for comment,
has had other legal disputes with the city.

Last October, the Radisson's owner won in state court its appeal
of the city's 2012 and 2013 assessment of the value of the hotel's
personal property -- consisting of furniture, fixtures and
equipment that included data-processing equipment;
telecommunications gear; hotel uniforms/linens, among other items,
court records show.

According to court papers, 50 Morgan hired an appraiser who set
the hotel's personal-property fair value in continued use at
$330,780 as of Oct. 1, 2012 and $454,000 as of Oct. 1, 2013.
The city assessor, however, asserted the hotel's personal property
was worth way more: $893,890 in assessed value on its personal
property in 2012.

Ultimately, a trial referee sided with the hotel owner, declaring
that both the hired appraiser's Oct. 1, 2012 and Oct. 1, 2013
personal-property valuations of $330,780 and $454,000,
respectively, were reasonably calculated based on the hotel's use
of the items rather than for their purchase or sale.

Hotel owner's plight

Landlord Paul Khakshouri says he has been an investor in downtown
Hartford real estate the past 16 years.  One of his holdings is
the former Bond Hotel, now Homewood Suites, at 338 Asylum St.
Mr. Khakshouri says Homewood also is among the three hotels with a
pending tax-abatement application at city hall.  He said he needs
property-tax relief because overall occupancy among Hartford's
downtown hotels has been stuck at an average 58 percent for the
last four years.

Moreover, he is petrified at the prospect that a looming
revaluation of all city residential and commercial real estate
likely will show values have increased, triggering higher
property-tax bills.

If his tax bill climbs, he said, along with the prospect that
Aetna's pending merger with Humana further shrinks executive-
travelers' use of his lodging services, the resulting drag on
Homewood's profitability would place it "in dire straits."

Class action possible

Similar concerns prompted him, he said, to sell the former 96-room
Holiday Inn Express hotel, now a Red Roof Inn, doors away from
Homewood Suites.

The problem, he said, is an existing loophole that allows hotels
atop city- or state-owned real estate to qualify for favorable tax
treatment.

He said that if the city denies his latest request for tax relief,
he would strongly consider following in the Radisson's footsteps -
- and urge other aggrieved hotel owners to join -- in pursuing a
class-action lawsuit against the city.
"It's unfair play," Mr. Khakshouri said.


HOBART SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid in "Alcantar" Under Submission
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez entered order in the class action lawsuit
styled JOSELUIS ALCANTAR v. HOBART SERVICE, ET AL., Case No. 5:11-
cv-01600-PSG-SP (C.D. Cal.), taking the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification under submission.

Accordingly, the court has considered all papers submitted in
support of and in opposition to the supplemental referenced above,
and the oral argument presented. A ruling will be issued after
full consideration of the submitted pleadings.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tUX0St5B

Joseluis Alcantar, Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Robin Gibson Workman, Esq.
          Workman Law Firm, PC
          177 Post St Ste 900
          San Francisco, CA 94108-4712
          E-mail: robin@qualls-workman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mara Curtis, Esq.
          Thomas Hill, Esq.
          Reed Smith LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
                  thill@reedsmith.com


HORTONWORKS INC: Faces Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------
Hortonworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 29, 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,
Robert G. Bearden and Scott J. Davidson. The lawsuit alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operations. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Hortonworks' securities between
November 4, 2015 and January 15, 2016, inclusive. 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. Based on a review of the allegations, we believe that the
plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against the claims.


HOUSTON GARDEN: Conditional Certification Sought in "Romero" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Romero on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, THE Plaintiffs v. HOUSTON GARDEN CENTERS, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00935 (S.D. Tex.), asks the District
Court to rule that:

     (1) Houston Garden Centers' Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate
will not restrict the Putative Class Members' right to receive
notice and bring a claim damages under Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA);

     (2) this case is conditionally certified for purpose of
notice and discovery;

     (3) Hoston Garden Centers shall produce to Plaintiff's
counsel the names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses
in a usable electronic format for each Putative Class Members;

     (4) a notice and consent form shall be sent to the Putative
Class Members, by mail and e-mail, informing them of their rights
to bring a claim for damages under FLSA;

     (5) order Plaintiff's counsel to call those class members who
have not returned a consent form after 30 days from the initial
mailing to ensure receipt of the notice;

     (6) authorize a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class
Members to join the case.

Plaintiff asks the Court to immediately certify a collective
action of general laborers and supervisors employed by Defendant
over the past three years.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778 8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


II-VI INCORPORATED: To Defend Against Zalewski Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
II-VI Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend against the Zalewski Litigation.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit captioned Wes Zalewski v. ANADIGICS, Inc., et al., filed
on January 27, 2016 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County (the "Zalewski Litigation"), which is related to the
Company's acquisition of ANADIGICS, Inc. ("ANADIGICS"). In the
Zalewski Litigation, the plaintiff, a stockholder in ANADIGICS,
generally alleges, among other things, that the members of
ANADIGICS's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to
ANADIGICS's shareholders, putting the board of directors' personal
interests ahead of the interests of ANADIGICS, using allegedly
unfair deal protection devices, and having an unfair and
inadequate process in negotiating the tender offer and the merger.
The plaintiff also has named the Company and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Regulus Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), as
defendants in the lawsuit, alleging that both Purchaser and II-VI
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the ANADIGICS
board of directors. In March 2016, the Zalewski Litigation was
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware, and is now captioned Wes Zalewski v. ANADIGICS, Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. 16-cv-00136-SLR.  The plaintiff in the
Zalewski Litigation is now seeking monetary relief and attorneys'
fees and expenses. The Company and the other defendants are
reviewing the allegations in the Zalewski Litigation, but believe
the Zalewski Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against the allegations. The Company does not believe that
a material loss related to this claim is reasonably possible.

II-VI Incorporated, a worldwide leader in engineered materials and
opto-electronic components, is a vertically integrated
manufacturing company that develops innovative products for
diversified applications in the industrial, optical
communications, military, life sciences, semiconductor equipment,
and consumer markets.


INFINITY INSURANCE: Copelan Asks Court to Certify 2 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled JAMES B. COPELAN and BRIAN M.
LOWENTHAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01355-R-JPR (C.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs
move this court for an order that certifies this action as a class
action on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly
situated, namely:

     -- Any current or former resident of the State of California
who, within the last four years, sustained diminished value losses
to a vehicle insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty)
as a result of an automobile accident involving an automobile
and/or driver insured under an Infinity Insurance Company
(Infinity) automobile liability policy and who was not paid for
diminished value damages and on whose behalf Liberty failed to
pursue diminished value damages prior to seeking subrogation from
Infinity (Copelan Class); and

     -- Any current or former resident of the State of California
who caused damages to a third-party's automobile as a result of an
automobile accident or collision while insured under an automobile
liability insurance policy issued by Infinity who, within the last
four years, was sued by, or otherwise subjected to a claim, legal
proceedings, or administrative proceedings instituted by, the
third-party (or, its agents and/or representatives) for diminished
value damages resulting from the accident after Infinity declined
and/or failed to pay the third-party's diminished value claim
(Class Period) and who Infinity declined and/or failed to defend
in such proceedings (Lowenthal Class).

Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that the Court allow Plaintiffs
to conduct pre-certification discovery, which is reasonably likely
to lead to the discovery of additional, material information and
evidence substantiating Plaintiffs' class allegations and request
for class certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5433zTiA

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Sparks, Esq.
          MOSTYN LAW FIRM
          6280 Delaware Street
          Beaumont, TX 77706
          Telephone: (409) 832 2777
          Facsimile: (409) 832 2703
          E-mail: mark@mostynlaw.com

               - and -

          Montie S. Day, Esq.
          DAY LAW OFFICES
          P.O. Box 1525
          William, CA 95987
          Telephone: (208) 280 3766
          Facsimile: (800) 291 2901
          E-mail: msdayesq@aol.com


INTEX RECREATION: Class Certification Sought in "Mirescu" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs move for Class Certification in the class action
lawsuit styled GEORGETA MIRESCU, and TERENCE DUFFY, individually
and, on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. INTEX RECREATION CORP., a California corporation; INTEX
MARKETING LTD., a British Virgin Islands limited company; INTEX
CORP., a California corporation; INTEX GROUP, a California
corporation; WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:16-cv-01682-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.)

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23, consisting of:

"All persons in the United States who purchased an Intex air
mattress."

Plaintiffs also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiffs as
Class Representatives, and for appointment of Plaintiffs'
attorneys as Class Counsel. Plaintiffs file the Motion for Class
Certification at this time in order to comply with Local Rule 23-
3, and preserve their right to proceed on a classwide basis. Prior
to filing this Motion, Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte Application
for Relief from Local Rule 23-3 (Application).  If that
Application is granted, Plaintiffs intend to withdraw this Motion,
and will resubmit it at a later time as prescribed by the Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vtbCQ5aQ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440 4180
          E-mail: www.attomeyzim.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          Charles T. Spagnola, Esq.
          Eliot F. Krieger, Esq.
          SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG,
          SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP
          444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1700
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 597 7070
          Facsimile: (562) 597 7772
          E-mail: atamburelli@sullivankrieger.com
                  cspagnola@sullivankrieger.com
                  ekrieger@sullivankrieger.com


IT'S JUST LUNCH: Settles Class Action Over Dating Site
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports that if you didn't get a
match from the dating site "It's Just Lunch," there could be a
explanation according to the lawsuit.

"The class action alleges they were ignoring your preferences and
what you were asking for," Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com
said.

A lawsuit also alleges matches weren't made by professionals, but
by employees with no training.

If you joined the site after October of 2001, the settlement means
a $450 voucher with the company to try it again, or you can give
the voucher away.


KEYS PRODUCTIONS: Collective Action Sought in "Dixon" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled MICHEA DIXON, Individually, and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KEYS
PRODUCTIONS, INC. D/B/A RED GARTER; MARK ROSSI, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-10223-JLK (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
requests that the Court:

(1) adopt the attached "Consent Notice to Become Party
Plaintiff"; and

(2) order Defendant to disclose to Plaintiff the names and last
known mailing addresses of all persons that danced as exotic
entertainers at Red Garter in Key West, Florida at any time during
a three year period before the Complaint was filed within 20 days
of the Court's Order permitting this case to proceed as a
collective action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1rjiop7L

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam B. Kenner, Esq.
          KENNER, CUMMMINGS & IMPARATO, PLLC
          175 SW 7th Street, Suite 2410
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 384 7370
          Facsimile: (305) 384 7371
          E-mail: adam@kennercummings.com


LAFAYETTE, IN: Class Action Seeks Refunds of Utility Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit is
seeking what could be more than $400 million in refunds for
thousands of current and former customers of a government-owned
utility system in Lafayette.

The suit, filed in state court, centers on annual payments that
the Lafayette Utilities System makes to the city to support city
services.  The system's most recent payment was about $22 million.

The lawsuit claims that the "in-lieu-of-tax payments" amount to an
unconstitutional, excessive fee on customers' bills.

The utility system's director, Terry Huval, says the payments have
"legally been in use for many decades."  The Advocate reports that
there don't appear to be any similar legal challenges in
Louisiana, where these payment arrangements aren't unusual for
publicly owned utility systems.

The suit's plaintiffs include a well-known local restaurant owner,
Nidal Balbeisi.  The case was filed by the Opelousas firm of
Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett.

The utility system has more than 65,000 electric customers.

The lawsuit seeks a refund of the portion of customer payments,
from 1976 to present, that were used to fund the utility system's
annual in-lieu-of-tax payments.

The suit doesn't specify the amount of damages it seeks, but the
in-lieu-of-tax payments total more than $400 million since 1976.
That amount is more than four times greater than the city's
general fund budget.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal in a
class action lawsuit is pending.

In 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania alleging that the
Company and its CEO assisted various breaches of fiduciary duties
based on the Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a
development-stage pharmaceutical program from the Genaera
Liquidating Trust in 2010 and the Company's subsequent sale of
half of its interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value
Fund, Inc.  Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in February
2015, which the Company moved to dismiss in March 2015.  The
district court granted the motion to dismiss on November 11, 2015.
The plaintiff has appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit.  The
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
claims against the Company and its CEO.  The outcome of the matter
is not presently determinable.

Ligand is a biopharmaceutical company with a business model that
is based upon the concept of developing or acquiring royalty
revenue generating assets and coupling them with a lean corporate
cost structure.


LIN MING-HUI: Survivors of Collapsed Building File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yang Sze-jui and S.C. Chang, writing for CNA, report that
survivors of a building that collapsed in Tainan, aided by the
government, filed a class-action lawsuit on June 13 against the
builder, seeking more than NT$800 million (US$24.70 million) in
compensation, city officials said that day.

Hsiao Po-jen, director of the city's Department of Legal Affairs,
said his department has been working with the Executive Yuan's
Consumer Protection Committee and the Chinese Taipei Consumers'
Foundation on matters related to legal compensation for the
families of the victims living in the Weiguan Jinlong apartment
complex that collapsed in a Feb. 6 earthquake that rattled
southern Taiwan.  A total of 115 people died and 96 were injured
when their building toppled during the magnitude-6.4 temblor.

The Consumers' Foundation filed the lawsuit against Lin Ming-hui
and others responsible for building the defective apartments,
Hsiao said.  He added that the city government had earlier sought
a ruling from the Tainan District Court on a provisional
attachment of NT$598.32 million (US$18.46 million)-worth of assets
of the suspects.

To date, 90 survivors have joined the class-action lawsuit, and
Hsiao urged those who have not signed up to get in touch with the
city government or the Consumers' Foundation by the end of
September -- the deadline for this type of lawsuit, which has a
statute of limitations.


LIVANOVA PLC: To Defend Against Baker Miller Case
-------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend against the case, Baker, Miller et al v. LivaNova PLC

On February 12, 2016, LivaNova was alerted that a class action
complaint had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania with respect to the Company's 3T Heater
Cooler devices, naming as evidence, in part, the Warning Letter
issued by the FDA in December 2015. The named plaintiffs to the
complaint are two individuals who underwent open heart surgeries
at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical
Center in 2015, and the complaint alleges that: (i) patients were
exposed to a harmful form of bacteria, known as nontubercuous
mycobacterium ("NTM"), from LivaNova's 3T Heater Cooler devices;
and (ii) LivaNova knew or should have known that design or
manufacturing defects in 3T Heater Cooler devices can lead to NTM
bacterial colonization, regardless of the cleaning and
disinfection procedures used (and recommended by the Company).
Named plaintiffs seek to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting
of all Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at
WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical
Center between 2011 and 2015 and who are currently asymptomatic
for NTM infection (approximately 3,600 patients).

The putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks:
(i) declaratory relief finding the 3T Heater Cooler devices are
defective and unsafe for intended uses; (ii) medical monitoring;
(iii) general damages; and (iv) attorneys' fees.

On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
adding Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH and Sorin Group USA, Inc. as
defendants.

At LivaNova, patient safety is of the utmost importance, and
significant resources are dedicated to the delivery of safe, high-
quality products.

"We intend to vigorously defend against these claims," the Company
said. "Given the early stage of this matter, we cannot, however,
give any assurances that additional legal proceedings making the
same or similar allegations will not be filed against LivaNova PLC
or one of its subsidiaries, nor that the resolution of the
complaint and any related litigation in connection therewith will
not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity."


MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Mainsource Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the defendants
and lead plaintiffs have entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU"), which provides for the settlement of the
merger class action lawsuits.

On November 23, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Cheviot Financial Corp., a Maryland
corporation ("Cheviot"), pursuant to which Cheviot will merge with
and into the Company, whereupon the separate corporate existence
of Cheviot will cease and MainSource will survive.  It is
anticipated that immediately after the Merger, Cheviot Savings
Bank, an Ohio-chartered savings and loan association and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Cheviot, will merge with and into MainSource
Bank, an Indiana chartered commercial bank and wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, with MainSource Bank as the surviving
bank.

The merger became effective on May 20, 2016 and was completed in
accordance with the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of
November 23, 2015, between Cheviot and MainSource.

At the effective time of the merger, stockholders of Cheviot will
have the right to elect to receive either 0.6916 shares of the
Company's common stock or $15.00 in cash for each share of Cheviot
common stock owned, subject to proration provisions specified in
the Merger Agreement that provide for a targeted aggregate split
of total consideration of 50% common stock and 50% cash. Based
upon the November 20, 2015 closing price of $23.56 per share of
the Company's common stock, the transaction is valued at
approximately $107.4 million.

Cheviot Financial Corp is the holding company of Cheviot Savings
Bank. Cheviot Savings Bank was founded in 1911 as an Ohio-
chartered savings and loan association and reorganized into a two-
tier mutual holding company in 2004. Cheviot now operates 12 full
service offices spanning across Hamilton County. As of December
31, 2015, Cheviot had $572,000 of total assets, $376,171 of loans,
$454,885 of deposits and total equity of $96,469.

Two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Hamilton, Ohio, Civil Division, challenging the
proposed merger and naming as defendants Cheviot, its directors,
and MainSource (collectively, the "defendants"). These actions are
captioned: (1) Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et
al., Case No. A1600359 (filed January 15, 2016); and (2) Stephen
Bushansky v. Steven Hausfeld, et al., Case No. A1600936 (filed
February 16, 2016) (together, the "Actions"). On February 29,
2016, each plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On March 24,
2016, the court consolidated the actions under Raymond J.
Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No. A1600359
(collectively, the "Actions").

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that the directors of Cheviot breached their fiduciary duties of
due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing to the
stockholders of Cheviot, that the consideration to be received by
the stockholders is inadequate and undervalues Cheviot, that the
Merger Agreement includes improper deal-protection devices that
purportedly lock up the Merger and may operate to prevent other
bidders from making successful competing offers for Cheviot, that
the deal protection devices unreasonably inhibit the ability of
the directors of Cheviot to act with respect to investigating and
pursuing superior proposals and alternatives and that the Merger
Agreement involves conflicts of interest. The complaint further
alleges that Cheviot and MainSource aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Cheviot. The
amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the registration
statement on Form S-4, initially filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 11, 2016 in connection
with the Merger, provides materially misleading and incomplete
information rendering the stockholders of Cheviot unable to make
an informed decision with respect to the Merger.

On April 21, 2016, defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU"), which provides for the
settlement of the Actions. The settlement contemplated by the MOU
is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Cheviot's
stockholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Cheviot
challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlement.

The Company does not anticipate a material financial impact as a
result of the actions or MOU.


MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company will
vigorously defend against the claims advanced in a class action
lawsuit in California.

Following the public announcement of Sanofies election to
terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline
in the Company's stock price, several complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the
"District Court") against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of its common stock.
The complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and have been pled as putative
shareholder class actions. In general, the complaints allege that
the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the prospects for AFREZZA, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and other relief.

On April 29, 2016, two putative shareholders filed a Joint
Stipulation with the District Court seeking an order consolidating
the actions for all purposes, appointing them co-lead plaintiffs,
and approving their selection of lead counsel. The Company will
vigorously defend against the claims advanced.


MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Class Action in Tel Aviv
----------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that following the public
announcement of Sanofies election to terminate the Sanofi License
Agreement and the subsequent decline in the Company's stock price,
two motions were submitted to the district court at Tel Aviv
(Economic Department) for the certification of a class action
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. In
general, the complaints allege that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities laws
by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of
its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. The
Company will vigorously defend against the claims advanced.


MARIETTA MEMORIAL: "Myers" Plaintiffs Must Submit to Deposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Lynnett Myers, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Marietta Memorial Hospital, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-2956 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Terence P. Kemp granted in part and denied, in part,
Memorial Health System Marietta Memorial Hospital's motion to
compel the depositions of the plaintiffs Lynnett Myers, Carol
Butler, Arvav Lowther, and opt-in plaintiff Stacy Hanlon.

Judge Kemp granted the motion to compel to the extent it seeks to
depose the plaintiffs and denied to the extent it seeks an award
of fees and costs.  Judge Kemp also granted the plaintiff's motion
for leave to file a sur-reply.  The plaintiffs were ordered to
provide dates for their depositions within 14 days from the date
of the order.  Lastly, Judge Kemp denied the plaintiffs' emergency
motion for a protective order, cease and desist order, corrective
actions, and the immediate granting of the plaintiffs' motion for
issuance of notice to the extent that it seeks a protective order
prohibiting the depositions

A full-text copy of Judge Kemp's June 7, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/oNbrrM from Leagle.com.

The complaint in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case was
filed on October 28, 2015 by Myers, Butler, and Lowther against
the hospital asserting a wage and hour claim.  Subsequently,
Hanlon consented to opt in as a plaintiff.

Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, Arva Lowther, Plaintiffs, represented
by Marcy J. Stevens, Chapin Legal Group, LLC & Lance Chapin,
Chapin Legal Group, LLC.

Marietta Memorial Hospital, Defendant, represented by James Edward
Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP &
Catherine L Strauss -- catherine.strauss@icemiller.com -- Ice
Miller LLP.

Marietta Health Care Inc, Selby General Hospital, Defendants,
represented by James Edward Davidson, Ice Miller LLP.


MATTRESS FIRM: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP, on June 12 disclosed that it has commenced
an investigation concerning whether Mattress Firm Holding Corp.
violated federal securities laws.  Mattress Firm operates as a
specialty retailer of mattresses and related products and
accessories in the United States.

On June 9, 2016, Mattress Firm announced its financial results for
the first fiscal quarter ended May 3, 2016.  Mattress Firm also
cut its annual forecast to $2.25 to $2.35 per share and announced
it would incur an impairment charge of $138.7 million for the
quarter stemming from a decision to rebrand all of its stores
under the Mattress Firm name.  Following this news, shares of
Mattress Firm closed down over 12% on June 10, 2016.

This disclosure preceded a March 21, 2016 announcement when
Mattress Firm reported disappointing fourth quarter earnings of
$0.53 per share and provided full year guidance of $2.50 to $2.60
per share.  Adding to the disappointing results, Mattress Firm
announced that President Ken Murphy would replace CEO Steve
Stagner.

If you are a Mattress Firm shareholder and are interested in
learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com
-- by email or by phone at 619-814-4471.  If emailing, please
include a phone number where you can be reached.

                About Johnson & Weaver, LLP

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits.


MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: "Cortez" Remanded to Sacramento County
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSEPH CORTEZ, BRAD ASBURY, MARGARET FELTS,
and BELEN DURFEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC., and
DOES1 through 50, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-01891-TLN-EFB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the plaintiffs' motion to
remand the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court and denied
as moot the defendant's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Nunley's June 7, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/NLLpOL from Leagle.com.

The putative class action was initiated on or about October 2,
2014, when Joseph Cortez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint against
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., a corporation owning several
newspapers throughout California, in the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento.  Cortez filed a First Amended
Complaint on or about April 24, 2015, after the Superior Court
partially sustained McClatchy's demurrers to the original
complaint.

On or about July 30, 2015, Cortez, together with Brad Asbury,
Margaret Felts, and Belen Durfee, filed a Second Amended Complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.  The
plaintiffs' claims arose from McClatchy's allegedly false and
misleading billing practices in connection with newspaper
subscriptions.

On September 8, 2015, McClatchy filed a Notice of Removal alleging
the district court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act.

Joseph Cortez, Brad Asbury, Margaret Felts, Belen Durfee,
Plaintiffs, represented by Stuart C. Talley -- stuart@kctlegal.com
-- Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP.

McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert James
Herrington -- herrington@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP,
Benjamin Samuel Kurtz -- kurtzb@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP
& Kurt A. Kappes -- kappesk@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP.


MDL 1657: 5 Vioxx Product Liability Suits v. Merck Still Active
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant
in approximately five active federal and state lawsuits (Vioxx
Product Liability Lawsuits) alleging personal injury as a result
of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the Vioxx MDL) before Judge Eldon
E. Fallon.

Merck is also a defendant in approximately 30 putative class
action lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the
purchase of Vioxx. All but one of those cases are in the Vioxx
MDL. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of
these class actions in the Vioxx MDL. Under the settlement, Merck
will pay up to $23 million to resolve all properly documented
claims submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and
expenses, and approved settlement notice costs and certain other
administrative expenses. The court entered an order approving the
settlement in January 2014 and the claims review process was
recently completed.

Merck is also a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys
General of three states -- Alaska, Montana and Utah. The lawsuits
are pending in state courts. These actions allege that Merck
misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek recovery for
expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs,
such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act
violations. Trial has been scheduled in the Montana case for
September 12, 2016, and trial has been set in the Alaska case for
January 9, 2017. A motion for judgment on the pleadings in the
Montana case is currently pending. Merck's motion to dismiss in
Utah and motion for judgment on the pleadings in Alaska were both
recently denied.


MDL 1657: June 28 Final Approval Hearing on Vioxx Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has set a
final approval hearing for June 28, 2016, on the settlement in the
Vioxx securities lawsuits.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits have been
filed against Merck and certain former employees alleging that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making alleged
material misstatements and omissions with respect to the
cardiovascular safety of Vioxx (Vioxx Securities Lawsuits). The
Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated
for all purposes.

In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss in the consolidated securities
class action (the Class Action). In June 2013, plaintiffs filed
their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint, which defendants
answered in July 2013. Following the completion of discovery,
defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in
part and denied in part in May 2015.

On January 15, 2016, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement with plaintiffs to settle the Class Action for $830
million, plus an additional amount for attorneys' fees and
expenses, in exchange for, among other things, a dismissal with
prejudice of the Class Action and full releases of all claims
against defendants. The Company paid the total settlement amount
into escrow in April 2016. After available funds under certain
insurance policies, Merck's net cash payment for the settlement
and fees was approximately $680 million.

The proposed settlement covers all claims relating to Vioxx by
settlement class members who purchased Merck securities between
May 21, 1999, and October 29, 2004. The settlement is not an
admission of wrongdoing and, as part of the settlement agreement,
defendants continue to deny the allegations. The proposed
settlement, including any award of attorneys' fees and expenses,
is subject to final court approval.

On February 8, 2016, the parties filed the stipulation of
settlement, which the court preliminarily approved on February 11,
2016. The court has set a final approval hearing for June 28,
2016. The proposed settlement does not resolve the individual
securities lawsuits.

In connection with the settlement of the Class Action, which
remains subject to final court approval, the Company established a
net reserve of $680 million in the fourth quarter of 2015. The
Company also has a reserve with respect to certain Vioxx Product
Liability Lawsuits and an immaterial remaining reserve relating to
the previously disclosed Vioxx investigation for the non-
participating states with which litigation is continuing. The
Company has established no other liability reserves for, and
believes that it has meritorious defenses to, the remaining Vioxx
Product Liability Lawsuits, Vioxx Securities Lawsuits and Vioxx
International Lawsuits (collectively, the Remaining Vioxx
Litigation) and will vigorously defend against them. In view of
the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation,
particularly where there are many claimants and the claimants seek
indeterminate damages, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of these matters and, at this time, cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to the
Remaining Vioxx Litigation.


MDL 1789: 4,435 Fosamax Cases v. Merck Pending as of March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant
in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving
Fosamax (Fosamax Litigation). As of March 31, 2016, approximately
4,435 cases had been filed and were pending against Merck in
either federal or state court, including one case which seeks
class action certification, as well as damages and/or medical
monitoring. In approximately 30 of these actions, plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis
of the jaw (ONJ), generally subsequent to invasive dental
procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or
delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In
addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,405 of these actions
generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other
bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association with the use of
Fosamax.

Cases Alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw Related Injuries

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases
pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (Fosamax ONJ MDL)
for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and
in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million.
Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this
agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement (ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement) that was executed in April 2014 and included over 1,200
plaintiffs. As a condition to the settlement, 100% of the state
and federal ONJ plaintiffs had to agree to participate in the
settlement plan or Merck could either terminate the ONJ Master
Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100% participation requirement
and agree to a lesser funding amount for the settlement fund. On
July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master
Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the
participation level was approximately 95%. Merck has fully funded
the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement and the escrow agent under the
agreement has been making settlement payments to qualifying
plaintiffs. The claims of approximately 35 non-participants' will
remain once the settlement is complete. The ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures.


MDL 2452: 1,140 Januvia/Janumet Claims Served as of March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant
in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving
Januvia and/or Janumet. As of March 31, 2016, approximately 1,140
product user claims have been served on Merck alleging generally
that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of
pancreatic cancer and other injuries. These complaints were filed
in several different state and federal courts.

Most of the claims were filed in a consolidated multidistrict
litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies
Products Liability Litigation" (MDL). The MDL includes federal
lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following
medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of
which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies.
The majority of claims not filed in the MDL were filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California
State Court). There are 12 cases pending against Merck in state
courts other than the California State Court.

On November 9, 2015, the MDL granted summary judgment on the
grounds of preemption as to all claims alleging injury due to
pancreatic cancer. Based on that ruling, on November 30, 2015, the
MDL entered final judgment resulting in the dismissal of the
pancreatic cancer claims against Merck relating to approximately
715 product users.

On November 16, 2015, the California State Court likewise granted
summary judgment on preemption grounds as to claims alleging
injury due to pancreatic cancer. Based on that ruling, on April 5,
2016, the California State Court entered final judgment resulting
in the dismissal of the pancreatic cancer claims against Merck
relating to approximately 350 product users.
Plaintiffs are appealing the MDL preemption ruling, and are
expected to do likewise with respect to the California State Court
ruling.

In addition to the claims, the Company has agreed, as of December
31, 2015, to toll the statute of limitations for approximately 20
additional claims. The Company intends to continue defending
against these lawsuits.


MDL 2481: Class Cert. Ruling Expected by Mid-October 2016
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
expects to rule on a motion for class certification in the case,
In re ALUMINUM WAREHOUSING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 13-md-2481
(KBF) and all related cases (S.D.N.Y.), by mid-October 2016,
according to a joint scheduling order.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest on June 13 entered the Joint
Scheduligng Order providing for this timeline:

     1. Fact discovery, except to the extent stated, closed on May
13, 2016. (a) Each side may conduct up to and including 10
depositions of their choice (inclusive of any third-party
depositions) not later than June 13, 2016.

     2. Opposition briefs on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (ECF No. 932) shall be due not later than July 8,
2016. (a) Reply briefs shall be due not later than August 5, 2016.
(b) Oral argument shall be heard on September 8, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Court expects to rule on class cert. by mid-October 2016.

     3. Expert discovery shall close on March 17, 2017. (a)
Plaintiffs' expert reports shall be produced not later than
November 4, 2016. (b) Defendants' expert reports shall be produced
not later than February 1, 2017. (c) Plaintiffs' reply expert
reports shall be produced not later than March 3, 2017. (d) Expert
depositions shall be completed by March 17, 2017. 4. Motions for
summary judgment shall be due not later than March 21, 2017. (a)
Oppositions shall be due not later than April 26, 2017. (b)
Replies shall be due not later than May 24, 2017.

     5. Trial shall commence on July 10, 2017. (a) The Final
Pretrial Conference ("FPTC") is set for June 29, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.
(b) Motions in limine are due on May 31, 2017; oppositions are due
June 16, 2017. (c) Daubert motions are due on May 31, 2017;
oppositions are due June 16, 2017 (no replies). (d) Pretrial
materials, including the Joint Pretrial Order, are due not later
than July 3, 2017. Deposition due by March 17, 2017. Discovery due
by March 17, 2017. Motions due by May 31, 2017. Pretrial Order due
by July 3, 2017. Reply due by May 24, 2017. Responses due by June
16, 2017.

The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro, a
previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in
the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number
of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The complaints generally allege violations of federal
antitrust laws and state laws in connection with the storage of
aluminum and aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory,
injunctive and other equitable relief as well as unspecified
monetary damages, including treble damages.

On August 29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs
defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on
September 24, 2014, and the remaining plaintiffs sought to amend
their complaints in October 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints, rejecting
their monopolization claims and most state law claims but
permitting their antitrust conspiracy claims and certain parallel
state law and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. The court
directed the remaining plaintiffs to file their amended
complaints, which they did on April 9, 2015. Plaintiffs later
voluntarily dismissed their state law claims.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.
On April 25, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motions for leave
to further amend their complaints.  A copy of the Court's April 25
decision is available at https://is.gd/n3G3kh from Leagle.com.

Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Derek Y. Brandt, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Bardnerd LLC
& Walter W. Noss -- wnoss@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott LLP.

Defendants Goldman Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs International, J.
Aron & Company, and Metro International Trade Services LLC, are
represented by Richard C. Pepperman, II -- peppermanr@sullcrom.com
-- Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP.

Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Securities PLC,
Henry Bath LLC, are represented by David William Haller --
dhaller@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP.

Glencore Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot Lauer --
elauer@curtis.com -- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP.

Pacorini Metals USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by John M. Nannes
-- john.nannes@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP.


MEDICAL REVIEW: "Walpole" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Charlene M. Walpole, for herself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Medical Review Service, Inc., Katherine S.
Blomqvist, individually, Erik Jonas Blomqvist, individually and
Jennifer Robinson, individually, Defendants, Case 9:16-cv-80935-
DMM (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages
for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant is into the auditing of billings for medical services
provided by hospitals and other medical facilities where Walpole
worked as an audit supervisor.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
      Lisa M. Kohring, Esq.
      SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
      625 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 600
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 659-3300
      Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
      Email: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
             mail@schwarzberglaw.com
             lkohring@schwarzberglaw.com


MERCK & CO: 20 Femur Fracture Cases Pending as of March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016,
approximately 20 cases were pending in the Femur Fracture MDL.

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to have
all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one
multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.
The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal
cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be
transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New
Jersey (the Femur Fracture MDL). Judge Pisano presided over the
Femur Fracture MDL until March 10, 2015, at which time the Femur
Fracture MDL was reassigned from Judge Pisano to Judge Freda L.
Wolfson following Judge Pisano's retirement.

In the only bellwether case tried to date in the Femur Fracture
MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor.
In addition, on June 27, 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court
granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the
Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was
preempted by federal law.

In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order
requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why
those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took
place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based
on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to
the show cause order, on March 26, 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL
court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on
preemption grounds.

Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases are appealing that
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In
June 2015, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed without
prejudice another approximately 520 cases pending plaintiffs'
appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third Circuit.

On June 17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in
the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's updates in January
2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were
adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated
those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed Judge
Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit. In August 2014, Merck
filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano enter a further order
requiring all plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL who claim that
the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate and the proximate cause of
their alleged injuries to show cause why their cases should not be
dismissed based on the court's preemption decision and its ruling
in the Gaynor case. In November 2014, the court granted Merck's
motion and entered the requested show cause order.

As of March 31, 2016, approximately 20 cases were pending in the
Femur Fracture MDL, excluding the 515 cases dismissed with
prejudice on preemption grounds that are pending appeal and the
520 cases dismissed without prejudice that are also pending the
aforementioned appeal.


MERCK & CO: 3,040 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016,
approximately 3,040 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed
in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge Jessica
Mayer in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group
of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional
groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were
selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. A further
group of 25 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery was
selected by Merck in July 2015.


MERCK & CO: 300 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016,
approximately 300 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed
and are pending in California state court. A petition was filed
seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California
state court before a single judge in Orange County, California.
The petition was granted and Judge Thierry Colaw is currently
presiding over the coordinated proceedings. In March 2014, the
court directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed
through fact discovery and subsequently scheduled the Galper v.
Merck case, which plaintiffs' selected, as the first trial. The
Galper trial began on February 17, 2015 and the jury returned a
verdict in Merck's favor on April 3, 2015, and plaintiff has
appealed that verdict to the California appellate court. The next
Femur Fracture trial in California that was scheduled to begin on
April 25, 2016, was stayed at plaintiffs' request and a new trial
date has not been set.

Additionally, there are six Femur Fracture cases pending in other
state courts.

Discovery is ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts
where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to
defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 1,385 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Filed as of March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant
in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving
Propecia and/or Proscar. As of March 31, 2016, approximately 1,385
lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs who allege that they have
experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of
treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar. Approximately 55 of the
plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can
cause prostate cancer, testicular cancer or male breast cancer.
The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in
state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict
litigation before Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New
York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have been
consolidated before Judge Mayer in Middlesex County. In addition,
there is one matter pending in state court in Massachusetts and
one matter pending in state court in New York. The Company intends
to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: Court Granted Bid to Amend Sales Force Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the Sales Force
Litigation, a Magistrate Judge has granted plaintiffs' request to
amend the complaint.

In May 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales
representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales
representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory
policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement,
(b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work
environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state
discrimination laws.

In January 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four
additional named plaintiffs. On October 8, 2014, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as
premature.

In September 2015, plaintiffs filed additional motions, including
a motion for conditional certification under the Equal Pay Act; a
motion to amend the pleadings seeking to add ERISA and
constructive discharge claims and a Company subsidiary as a named
defendant; and a motion for equitable relief. Merck filed papers
in opposition to the motions.

On April 27, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification but denied plaintiffs' motions to extend
the liability period for their Equal Pay Act claims back to June
2009. As a result, the liability period will date back to April
2012, at the earliest.

On April 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs'
request to amend the complaint to add the following: (i) a Company
subsidiary as a corporate defendant; (ii) an ERISA claim and (iii)
an individual constructive discharge claim for one of the named
plaintiffs.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Dismisses FDCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM, reports that eighteen months
after the filing of a putative Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) class action that arose out of a $131 balance on a Verizon
account a New York Federal Judge has granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendants and dismissed the lawsuit.

The case is Huebner v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Case No. 14-cv-6046 (BMC), United States District Court, Eastern
District of New York.  The case involved the following facts:

In 2010, plaintiff switched his phone service to Verizon.  He
previously had Verizon service but had changed to another carrier.
As a result of his reversion to Verizon, the provider performed
some work on plaintiff's phone line to ensure he had adequate
service.  Verizon billed him a $131 fee for that work. Plaintiff
advised Verizon that he should not have been charged this fee and
he never paid the bill.

Midland Credit Management (MCM) and Midland Funding, LLC (Midland)
acquired the debt from Verizon in July 2013.  Midland purchased
the debt and placed it with MCM for servicing.  The account
reflected that plaintiff owed Verizon $131.21.

Plaintiff is an attorney.  On October 17, 2013, plaintiff called
MCM.  He had set up a tape recorder before making the call and
recorded the entire call.  During that call plaintiff asked what
he had to do to dispute the debt; the agent asked him what the
dispute was, and plaintiff repeatedly refused to describe it.
However, plaintiff's refusals were sufficiently indirect and
oblique that each one caused the collection agent to ask another
question in an effort to find out what the problem was with the
debt.  Plaintiff consistently evaded the questions.

Defendant's records of plaintiff's account contain the agent's
notes of the call, and show that she marked the account as
"deleted" following the call.  Defendant's records also establish
that on the same day, following the call, it sent plaintiff a
letter advising him that it had ceased collection efforts and had
instructed the Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs) to delete the
information MCM had reported regarding the account.

Defendant's internal procedures recognize the options allowed
under the FDCPA when it determines that a debt is disputed.
Defendant can simply mark and report the debt to the CRAs as
disputed, and either leave it in that category or attempt to
confirm the validity of the debt and, if it can confirm validity,
proceed with collection efforts.  Alternatively, upon marking the
debt as disputed, defendant can simply delete it, which it will
presumably do if it determines that the debt is not worth the
trouble of pursuing.

The records also showed that following the call, defendant coded
the account as "289," which, meant that the account was disputed
and deleted.  Within six days after the call, defendant sent
multiple requests to Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax, starting
on October 23, 2013, asking them to delete the item in question.
These requests were reiterated on a monthly basis three times
thereafter pursuant to defendant's policy of issuing repeated
requests to the CRAs to increase the likelihood that the agencies
will comply with requests for deletion.

On October 15, 2014 Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting
to collect a $131 debt plaintiff allegedly owed Verizon and
purchased by the defendant.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant's
attempt to seek an explanation from him when it marked his debt as
disputed, as well as its failure to report his debt as disputed,
were both illegal.

insideARM previously wrote about this case on February, 17, 2015.
At that time the Judge in the case, The Honorable Brian M. Cogan,
had issued an Order to Show Cause  why the action should not be
dismissed, with fees awarded under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(3), and
sanctions issued pursuant to Rule 11.  As noted in that February
17, 2016 article, in that Order the Judge had some harsh
commentary about the case:

"[This] case . . . goes beyond anything that the Court has seen.
It represents a deliberate and transparent attempt by a
sophisticated debtor to entrap a collection company into a
technical violation.  Even more problematically, plaintiff chose
to bring this action even though there is a tape recording showing
that the attempt at entrapment utterly failed.  The collection
company in this case did everything by the book, and yet has still
found itself a defendant in an FDCPA action. There are substantial
questions about whether this action should be allowed to proceed
and whether defendant is entitled to recover attorneys' fees for
having had to defend it."

On May 15, 2015 Judge Cogan issued his decision on the Order to
Show Cause.  Judge Cogan again chastised the Plaintiff:

"In responding to the Order to Show Cause, plaintiff does not deny
that he attempted to trick defendant into a violation of the
FDCPA.  Instead, he makes essentially two arguments.  First, he
claims that if I had a more complete record, which he has now
supplied, I would have seen that defendant did, in fact, violate
the FDCPA, for reasons to which he did not refer at the Initial
Status Conference.  Second, he alleges that because the Order to
Show Cause criticized abuses of the FDCPA by some attorneys and
plaintiffs, and because of the manner in which I have managed this
case, I have demonstrated bias that mandates my recusal.  As part
of this argument, he contends that I have a financial interest in
defendant, and therefore should not be hearing this case.  Based
on these allegations, he moves to vacate the Order to Show Cause,
to have me recuse myself, and to certify for appeal my ruling on
these motions in the event I deny them. Defendant has opposed
plaintiff's motion, urging that there is neither merit to his case
nor to his motion for recusal.

. . . plaintiff's motion for recusal is in part frivolous and
entirely without merit.  Had plaintiff done his research, he would
have learned that I have no financial interest, as that term is
defined in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, in
defendant, and that nothing in the Order to Show Cause, or in my
management of this case, approaches the level necessary to warrant
disqualification.  With respect to the merits of plaintiff's case,
to the extent that the Order to Show Cause was based on only a
partial view of the facts (and it appears now that it was), it was
because plaintiff's counsel, in violation of his obligations under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, failed to give me any of the
facts behind his claim other than his reliance on the recorded
conversation, which proved nothing except plaintiff's failed
attempt to entrap defendant. Accordingly, for the reasons set
forth below, plaintiff's motion for recusal and related relief is
denied.  The case shall proceed in the normal course to determine
if the new version of the claim that plaintiff has now set forth
has any merit.  However, I am sanctioning plaintiff's attorney for
failing to participate in the Initial Status Conference in good
faith as required by Rule 16."

In the Order granting Summary Judgment, Judge Cogan writes:

"Even construing the facts most favorably to [plaintiff] (like
assuming he never received either of the two mailings that
defendant sent him), and applying the "least sophisticated
consumer" standard (although plaintiff is a lawyer and anything
but an unsophisticated consumer), see, e.g., Clomon v. Jackson,
988 F.2d 1314, 1318-19 (2d Cir. 1993), I cannot see a genuine
issue of fact as to any of them.  Defendant did exactly what it
was supposed to do under the FDCPA.  Indeed, defendant undertook
this action even though any reasonable reading of plaintiff's
recorded call shows that he was trying to trick defendant into not
complying with the FDCPA.  Defendant failed to take the bait and
allowed him to dispute his debt; it then stopped collecting on the
debt and notified the CRAs.

Defendant's policies instruct its employees to ask follow-up
questions when a consumer advises that he is disputing his debt. I
see no problem with that under the law at all.  There is nothing
unreasonable about allowing a debt collector to ask an individual
to explain why he is disputing his debt, as long as it does not
interfere with an individual's ability to dispute that debt.
Asking follow-up questions enables the debt collector to focus its
investigation on what the problem is with the debt, rather than
shooting in the dark.  It might even allow the collection agency
to resolve the dispute on the spot.  If the consumer answers the
question by saying, "I only owe $120, not $131," the collection
agent might well say, "fine, we'll take it." Problem solved.

What plaintiff did is not what the least sophisticated consumer
would do, because the least sophisticated consumer would not be an
experienced FDCPA lawyer trying to manufacture an FDCPA claim. He
would not say that he is disputing the debt "because the debt is
non- existent," leaving the agent clueless.  Rather, when asked
why he wanted to dispute the claim, the least sophisticated
consumer would simply say, "Verizon didn't tell me they were going
to charge me reinstituting service, and when they charged me, I
refused to pay."  The truth seldom requires any sophistication.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment is therefore granted, and
the Third Amended Complaint is dismissed.  Plaintiff's motion for
class certification is denied.  The Clerk is directed to enter
judgment accordingly."

insideARM Perspective

The court records show the following totals:

   -- 96 separate documents filed
   -- 7 different attorneys representing the Plaintiff
   -- 3 separate, lengthy Orders from the Judge Handling the case

It is difficult to provide meaningful perspective on three
separate Orders with simple, clean, concise language from a United
States District Court Judge.  Simply reading the three Orders will
provide all the perspective needed.

This case has been ongoing for 18 months.  MCM had to spend
considerable amounts in legal fees to defend the action.  All on a
$131 account! The obvious question is whether this is really the
end of the line for this case.


MINOR LEAGUE: February 2017 Trial Scheduled for Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Gonzalez, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Minor
league baseball players don't have inflated salaries and big
endorsement deals.  Instead, they supplement their income with odd
jobs and by living with their parents.

Twins prospect Chris Paul drives his car for Uber during the
offseason.  Max Murphy lives with mom and dad.  Trey Vavra spent
an offseason working at a truck stop.

The Twins minor league affiliate in Fort Myers helped remind
baseball fans that all professional baseball players aren't
wealthy in an in-depth story published by Southwest Florida's
News-Press.

The interesting article titled "Minor league players earn less
than minimum wage" reveals just how bad the pay really is and what
players are doing to create change.

Fort Myers Miracle players start at $1,500 a month and often work
60-plus hour work weeks, which when you break it down, is an
hourly wage just north of $6.  Florida's minimum wage is $8.05 and
the federal minimum is $7.25.  Minnesota's minimum wage is $9.

During spring training, players receive only $120 a week in meal
money.  During the offseason, minor league and big league players
are not paid.

Comparatively, the major league minimum salary averages out to
about $85,000 a month.

Former minor league pitcher Garrett Broshuis is fighting to change
these low pay standards.  Now an attorney in St. Louis, Mr.
Broshuis is representing more than 2,300 players in filing a
class-action lawsuit to change minor-league salaries.  The case is
set for trial in February 2017.


MISSOURI: Mo. Ct. App. Rules on "Poger" Appeal
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GERALD POGER, et al., Appellants, v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Respondents, No. ED
103293 (Mo. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern
District, Division Two affirmed in part and reversed, in part, the
trial court's summary judgment in favor of all respondents.

The appellants, a class of homeowners, filed several claims
against the respondents Missouri Department of Transportation
(MoDOT), Wood Lake Residents Association (Association), and
Community Managers Association, Inc. (CMA), after the Association
negotiated with MoDOT for the purchase of a portion of common land
in the Wood Lake Subdivision.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all
defendants, finding that the Association had the authority to sell
the property and that the appellants were estopped from bringing
their claims because they accepted the proceeds from the sale.

In affirming the trial court's summary judgment, the Court of
Appeals of Missouri held that "The Association had authority under
the Indenture and the general warranty deeds to sell the Property,
and Appellants had no power to sell their interest in the Property
independent of a sale of their lots or dwelling units. Appellants
similarly had no direct right to receive the proceeds of the sale,
except as beneficiaries under the Indenture. Thus, MoDOT did not
violate Appellants' rights in purchasing the Property from the
Association. Additionally, because Appellants accepted the
benefits of the sale as beneficiaries of at least the pool
improvement project undertaken by the Association as Trustee, they
are estopped from contesting the validity of the sale."

However, the appellate court also reversed and remanded the trial
court's summary judgment in favor of the Association and CMA,
stating that "the trial court's summary judgment, as well as the
summary judgment record, fail to establish the facts necessary to
properly grant summary judgment on Appellants' claims against the
Association and CMA as a matter of law."

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 7, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ywbT4v from Leagle.com.


NEWELL BRANDS: Must Update Court on Case Status by June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has directed
the parties to provide an update to the court on the status of the
federal action by June 30, 2016.

A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E.
Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross,
Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros
L'esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF
Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16-
CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf
of Jarden shareholders against the individually named director
defendants, who are directors of Jarden. The Company and its
subsidiaries NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp.
II are also named as defendants. The Complaint alleges claims
under Sec. 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"); SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants; and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual director
defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy/prospectus of
the Company and Jarden concerning the proposed merger contemplated
by the Merger Agreement omitted certain information. The parties
have entered into a settlement term sheet, pursuant to which the
Company added certain disclosures to its Registration Statement on
Form S-4. Subject to court approval of the settlement agreement
and the lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the shareholder claims
will be released, and the defendants will reimburse up to $0.6
million in attorney fees.

A second putative class action lawsuit (Jessica Paree v. Martin E.
Franklin, et al (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District
in and for Palm Beach County, Florida)) was filed on March 10,
2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden stockholders, against the
individually named director defendants, all of whom are directors
of Jarden. The Company and two of its subsidiaries are also named
as defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jarden
stockholders regarding the merger consideration agreed to and the
process undertaken by the director defendants in connection with
the Jarden transaction, and that the Company and two of its
subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff further
alleges that defendants have (i) solicited stockholder action
pursuant to a materially false and misleading joint proxy
statement/prospectus, (ii) failed to include all material
information concerning the unfair sales process that resulted in
the merger transactions, and (iii) materially omitted certain
information related to the financial analyses performed by
Jarden's financial advisor. Plaintiff seeks, among other things,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the merger
transactions, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
Jarden transaction is consummated, an award of attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs, and a direction from the court that
Jarden's individual board members account for all damages
allegedly suffered as a result of their alleged wrongdoing. On
March 28, 2016, the parties filed an Agreed Joint Motion to Stay
Proceedings, seeking a stay of the litigation, pending the outcome
of the above described Hirsch v. Lillie action. The court entered
an order staying the proceedings on March 31, 2016, and ordered
the parties to provide an update to the court on the status of the
federal action by June 30, 2016.

Newell Brands is a global marketer of consumer and commercial
products that help people get more out of life every day, where
they live, learn, work and play. Our products are marketed under a
strong portfolio of leading brands, including Sharpie(R), Paper
Mate(R), Expo(R), Prismacolor(R), Mr. Sketch(R), Elmer's(R),
Parker(R), Waterman(R), Dymo(R), Rubbermaid(R), Contigo(R),
Goody(R), Calphalon(R), Irwin(R), Lenox(R), Rubbermaid Commercial
Products(R), Graco(R), Aprica(R) and Baby Jogger(R).


NII HOLDINGS: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
TO:

All Persons and Entities that, During the Period from February 25,
2010 Through February 27, 2014, Inclusive ("Class Period"),
Purchased or Otherwise Acquired the Publicly Traded Securities of
NII Holdings, Inc. and/or NII Capital Corp. and Who Were Damaged
Thereby.  The Eligible Securities Are NII Holdings, Inc. Common
Stock ("NII Stock") (ISIN: US62913F2011), as Well as the Following
Debt Securities ("NII Bonds"): (i) 7.625% NII Bonds, Due April 1,
2021 (ISIN: US67021BAE92); (ii) 8.875% NII Bonds, Due December 15,
2019 (ISIN: US67021BAC37); and (iii) 10% NII Bonds, Due August 15,
2016 (ISIN: US67021BAD10).  Certain Persons and Entities are
Excluded from the Foregoing Definition of the Class, as set forth
in Detail in the Full Notice Mentioned Below.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a
class action on behalf of the class set forth above (the "Class").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class
Representatives Danica Pension, Livsforsikringsaktieselskab,
Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S, Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers Pension Plan, IBEW Local No. 58 / SMC NECA
Funds, and Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund (collectively,
"Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and the Class,
and Defendants Steven P. Dussek, Steven M. Shindler, and Gokul
Hemmady (the "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of
the Action in the amount of $41,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement
Amount") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims
in the Action (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Leonie M. Brinkema of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia in the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse, 401 Courthouse
Square, Alexandria, VA 22314 at 10:00 a.m. on September 16, 2016
(the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine
whether the Court should: (a) approve the proposed Settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) dismiss the Action with
prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated as of April 18, 2016; (c) approve the proposed
Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and
any interest earned thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees
and expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any
other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net
Settlement Fund"); and (d) approve Class Counsel's application for
an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses.  The Court
may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing
another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing
to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received the full Notice of Pendency
of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting the website
dedicated to this Action:

In re NII Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173009
Milwaukee, WI  53217
(866) 905-8128
www.niisecuritieslitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class
Counsel:

Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
Mark S. Arisohn, Esq.
Serena Hallowell, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
(888) 219-6877

Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
www.ktmc.com
(610) 667-7706

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or received on or before September 28, 2016.  If
you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice such that it is
received on or before August 26, 2016.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are filed and received on or before August
26, 2016.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

DATED: JUNE 13, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA


NINE ENERGY: "Sams" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Chad Sams, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Nine Energy Service, LLC, Defendant., Case No. 2:16-
cv-00533-CG-GBW (D.N.M., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the New Mexico Minimum Wage
Act.

Nine Energy is a nationwide oilfield services company with
significant completion and land drilling operations throughout the
United States where Sams was employed by Defendant as an operator
in their in New Mexico site. He claims to be denied overtime
compensation.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Milad K. Farah, Esq.
     GUERRA & FARAH, PLLC
     1231 E Missouri Ave.,
     El Paso, TX 79902
     Tel: (915) 533-0880
     Fax: (915) 533-1155
     Email: mkf@gflawoffices.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


NORTHERN MONTANA RETIREMENT: "Cleary" Seeks Payment of Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Cleary, M.D., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Retirement Plan for Employees of
Northern Montana Hospital, Administrative Committee of the
Retirement Plan for Employees of Northern Montana Hospital, John
Does 1-10 individually and as members of the Administrative
Committee of the Retirement Plan for Employees of Northern Montana
Hospital, and Northern Montana Hospital, Defendants, Case No.
4:16-cv-00061-BMM (D. Mont., June y, 2016), seeks payment of
vested benefits and all other relief under the terms of the
retirement plan and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

Retirement Plan for Employees of Northern Montana Hospital is an
employee benefit plan and an employee pension benefit plan where
Joel Cleary, M.D., a resigned physician of the Hospital,
participated in the Retirement Plan. He claims that he has been
denied certain retirement benefits to which they are entitled
under the terms of that Plan with respect to vesting and accrual
of benefits.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Havila Unrein, Esq.
     407 Main St. SW, Ste. 1
     Ronan, MT 59864
     Phone: (406) 281-7231
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: hunrein@kellerrohrback.com


PEOPLES BANCORP: Plaintiff Had Until June 7 to Appeal Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp Of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
Plaintiff had until June 7, 2016, to seek review of the ruling by
the Court of Appeals.

On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina.  The complaint alleged
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.  The Plaintiff sought to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.

On June 10, 2015, the North Carolina Business Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims and ordered
the case dismissed with prejudice.  The Plaintiff appealed to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals which, on May 3, 2016, in an
unanimous opinion, affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit by the
Business Court.  The Plaintiff had until June 7, 2016 to seek
review of the ruling by the Court of Appeals.  The Bank continues
to believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit if appealed.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
No. 14-CV-9662" postmarked no later than July 29, 2016, to:
The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP regarding
In Re Petrobras Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. 14-CV-9662 (JSR)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To: (1) All purchasers who, between January 22, 2010 and July 28,
2015 (the "Class Period"), inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras
("Petrobras"), including debt securities issued by Petrobras
International Finance Company S.A. ("PifCo") and/or Petrobras
Global Finance B.V. ("PGF") on the New York Stock Exchange
("NYSE") or pursuant to other domestic transactions (the "Exchange
Act Class"); and

(2) All purchasers who purchased or otherwise acquired debt
securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in domestic
transactions, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13,
2013 public offering registered in the United States and/or a
March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States
before Petrobras made generally available to its security holders
an earnings statement covering a period of at least twelve months
beginning after the effective date of the offerings (the
"Securities Act Class").

A class action lawsuit is now pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court")
under the above caption (the "Action").  The suit is brought on
behalf of investors for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws by defendants for purportedly concealing a multi-
year, multi-billion dollar bribery and kickback scheme. Defendants
have denied the claims and maintain they are not liable for the
injury alleged.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED of the pendency of the Action as a class
action. You may be a member of the Class whose rights might be
affected by this Action.

YOUR RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER: If you purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Petrobras, including debt securities
issued by PifCo and/or PGF, on the NYSE or pursuant to other
transactions occurring in the United States during the Class
Period, or purchased or otherwise acquired prior to August 11,
2014 debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in
transactions occurring in the United States, directly in, pursuant
and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering registered in
the United States and/or purchased or otherwise acquired prior to
May 15, 2015 debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or
PGF, in transactions occurring in the United States, directly in,
pursuant and/or traceable to a
March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States,
you are a member of one or both of the Classes. If you choose to
remain a member of one or both of the Classes, you do not need to
do anything at this time.  You will automatically be included in
either or both Classes unless you request exclusion in accordance
with the procedure set forth below.  Your decision is important
for the following reasons:

If you choose to remain in either or both Classes, you will be
bound by all orders and judgments in this Action.  Your interests
are being represented at no cost to you by the representatives of
the Classes and Class Counsel.  Class Counsel will be awarded fees
and costs only if it succeeds in obtaining a recovery from one or
more defendants.  You may remain a member of the Classes and elect
to be represented by your own counsel at your own expense.  If you
retain separate counsel, you will be responsible for that
counsel's fees and expenses and such counsel must enter an
appearance on your behalf by filing a Notice of Appearance with
the Court and mailing it to Class Counsel at the address below on
or before July 29, 2016.  If you exclude yourself from the Class
and decide to pursue your own action individually, you may not be
able to pursue certain claims due to the lapsing of the statute of
limitations, including claims under Section 11 related to the May
13, 2013 offering.

If you seek to share in any Class recovery, you will be required
to prove your membership in either or both Classes with evidence
of (i) your purchases, acquisitions and sales of Petrobras
securities (including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF);
(ii) that you purchased Petrobras securities in a domestic
transaction and suffered resulting damages, and/or (iii) that you
purchased such debt securities pursuant to or traceable to one of
the registered offerings referenced above.  In addition,
defendants may seek to prove that you did not rely on the
integrity of the market or that you had knowledge of defendants'
alleged misrepresentations or omissions.

If you choose to be excluded from either or both Classes, you will
not be bound by any judgment, nor will you be eligible to share in
any recovery that might be obtained in this Action.  If you
exclude yourself, you may individually pursue any legal rights
that you may have against the defendants.  To exclude yourself
from either or both Classes, you must mail a signed letter by mail
stating that you "request exclusion" from either or both of the
Classes in "In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 14-CV-9662"
postmarked no later than July 29, 2016, to: Petrobras Securities
Litigation, Notice Administrator, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10280, Dublin,
OH 43017-5780. Full details on how to be excluded are available at
www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com

WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: This Notice is only a
summary of the lawsuit.  For more detailed information, including
a complete list of defendants and CUSIPS of the debt securities
and ADSs involved, you may contact Class Counsel, Pomerantz LLP,
600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016, (212) 661-1100, call
the Notice Administrator at (855) 907-3218, or visit
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Rakoffor
www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com

To get a copy of this notice in Spanish, Portuguese, French,
Dutch, German, Japanese or Chinese, visit
www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.

Dated: May 9, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York


PICKVEST: Investors Reject Class Action Settlement Offer
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that the majority
of Pickvest investors seem to reject a settlement offer made by
property mogul Nic Georgiou to repay half of their invested
capital.

In terms of the offer, Georgiou proposes to repay 50% of
investors' investments in ten equal installments over a period of
nearly three-and-a-half years.  This would see investors lose half
their capital investments and accrued interest, but would allow
them to at least receive a chunk of their investment without
having to wait for a (potentially) drawn-out class action lawsuit.

The offer is only open to participants of the class action suit.
Georgiou also offered to pay the legal fees the investors incurred
to participate in the class action suit.  The deadline of the
offer is September 30.

In practice this offer means that an investor who invested R1
million will receive R500 000 in ten equal payments of R50 000
every 126 calendar days.  Investors who reject the offer will
continue to receive their monthly interest payments of around 2%,
or as in the example above, R20 000 a year.

The offer was recently made and followed protracted negotiations
between Georgiou and the Highveld Syndication Action Group (HSAG),
the committee that is driving the class action.

Helgard Hancke, one of the members of the HSAG committee, says
HSAG could not accept the offer.  "Our mandate was to negotiate
for the repayment of 100% of the capital.  Prior the negotiations
we sent a questionnaire to investors and from the responses it was
evident that the overwhelming majority of investors wanted a
repayment of 100%.  The investors also want to be repaid
immediately and not over an extended period.  Consequently, the
HSAG could not support the offer."

Many investors echoed this and expressed their dismay with the
offer on the HSAG Facebook page.

The offer will nonetheless be communicated to investors.

Class action suit

Mr. Hancke confirmed that the class action suit is still ongoing
and that its lawyers are in a process of compiling legal documents
to submit to court to have the Article 155 scheme of arrangement
rescinded.

In May, the South Gauteng High Court (SGHC) ruled that the HSAG
may appeal the sanctioning of the scheme of arrangement which
paved the way for the class action suit to continue.

Moneyweb emailed questions to Georgiou, but he did not respond
prior to publication.


PITTSBURGH GLASS: Seeks Dismissal of Age Discrimination Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that Pittsburgh
Glass Works (PGW) has responded to an appeal by former employees
who allege age discrimination after they were terminated as a part
of a reduction in workforce for the company in 2009.  The company
says the Third District Court of Appeals should uphold the lower
court's decision and the appeal should be dismissed.

Former Employees' Appeal

In 2009, PGW trimmed approximately 100 employees from its
workforce.  Rudolph Karlo and several other former employees filed
the class action complaint against PGW in 2010 after they were
terminated.

"On March 31, 2009, appellants, all 50 years of age or older, were
terminated by PGW in a company-wide reduction in force (RIF) of
its salaried employees in the United States.  Appellants sued
after determining the RIF had a disparate impact on employees age
50 and older," according to the appeal.

The original judge for the District Court conditionally certified
the class action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA).  Following discovery, the judge recused herself and the
case was reassigned to Judge Terrence F. McVerry.  He decertified
the class.

Attorneys for the appellants say the second District Court judge
was wrong by deviating from the original judge's ruling.

Though the District Court judge issued a summary judgment in favor
of PGW saying the class action could not go forward, he did allow
Count 3 of the complaint to proceed to trial at the District Court
level.  This count included the retaliation claims by Mr. Karlo
and former PGW employee Mark McLure.

A U.S. District Court jury found that PGW "willfully and
unlawfully retaliated against a former employee in violation of
the Age Discrimination Employee Act (ADEA)."  The jury awarded Mr.
Karlo $922,060.

Former employee McLure, who also complained of retaliation by the
company, entered a settlement with the company.

PGW Responds

PGW argues that the named plaintiffs were not similarly situated
to any former employees who opted in to the case.  The named
plaintiffs were part of the same group, had similar positions, and
worked for the same manager who included them in the March 2009
reduction-in-force, according to court documents.

The opt-in plaintiffs had different job titles, duties, locations
and decision-makers who used different procedures in selecting
employees for the reduction-in-force, according to PGW.

PGW further says the expert testimony introduced by the plaintiffs
was flawed and unreliable, therefore it was rightly discarded by
the lower court.

"Plaintiffs were unable to present any evidence of a retained
employee who was similarly situated and sufficiently younger than
any plaintiff," according to the court documents.

The District Court reviewed the record and determined that
plaintiffs' claims failed as a matter of law, PGW says.  As such,
the lower court's ruling should be upheld.


PLY GEM: Updates on Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on the
Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement.

In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a
purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged
damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of
certain MW vinyl clad windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry
v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a purported class action
filed in July 2012 in the District Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a
result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl
clad windows. On April 22, 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian
and Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad
windows.

MW entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April
18, 2014 to settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a
nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The
Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement
applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from
January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash
payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims
showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW
vinyl clad windows. The period for submitting qualified claims is
the later of: (i) May 28, 2016, or (ii) the last day of the
warranty period for the applicable window. On December 29, 2014,
the District Court granted final approval of this settlement, as
well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs'
counsel in the amount of $2.5 million, issuing a Final Approval
Order, Final Judgment, and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (the
"Final Approval Order").

A notice of appeal of the Final Approval Order (the "Appeal") was
given by certain objectors to the settlement, and on May 6, 2015,
MW entered into a settlement agreement with, among others, the
objectors to fully and finally resolve their claims, including the
dismissal of Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al.,
another lawsuit seeking class certification with respect to MW's
vinyl clad windows, making the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement
final and binding on the parties. The Company and MW deny all
liability in the settlements and with respect to the facts and
claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial
burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation, and therefore agreed to settle these matters.

As a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, the Company
recognized a $5.0 million expense during the year ended December
31, 2014 within selling, general, and administrative expenses in
the Company's consolidated statement of operations and
comprehensive income (loss) in the Company's Windows and Doors
segment. It is possible that the Company may incur costs in excess
of the recorded amounts; however, the Company currently expects
that the total net cost will not exceed $5.0 million. As of April
2, 2016, approximately $1.5 million of this liability is currently
outstanding with $0.7 million as a current liability within
accrued expenses and $0.8 million as a noncurrent liability within
other long-term liabilities in the Company's condensed
consolidated balance sheet.


PLY GEM: Petition for Appeal in "Pagliaroni" Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit has denied this petition for appeal in the
case by Anthony Pagliaroni.

In Anthony Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the
defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and
railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC
("Deceuninck") and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE").
The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive
damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. The
hearing regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
held on March 10, 2015, and the District Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on September 22, 2015.

On October, 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory
appeal of the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, and on April 12, 2016, the Court of
Appeals denied this petition for appeal.

Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has
agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this
claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as
amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek
indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms
and limits of the indemnity as well as the strength of
Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change in the
future.


PLY GEM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case Ply Gem
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, the District Court has not
yet ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported
federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's IPO.
It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the
defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging
that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently
prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements
of material fact and omitting material information which was
required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief,
including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as
lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13,
2015, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 29, 2015, the District Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss, but ruled that plaintiff could file an amended
complaint. On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, and on January 13, 2016, the defendants filed their
motion to dismiss this amended complaint. The District Court has
not yet ruled on this motion. The damages sought in this action
have not yet been quantified.

Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to
reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses
reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.
Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers.

"We believe the purported federal securities class action is
without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuit," the Company
said.


PLY GEM: Damages in "Carrillo-Hueso" Suit Not Yet Quantified
------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the damages sought in
the action by Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong have not yet been
quantified.

In Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc.
and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, a purported class action
filed on November 25, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of,
among other things, the defendants' failure to provide (i)
statutorily required meal breaks at the Sacramento, California
facility, (ii) accurate wage statements to employees in
California, and (iii) all wages due on termination in California.
The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties,
(iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not
yet been quantified.


PLY GEM: Damages in "Morgan" Suit Not Yet Quantified
----------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the damages sought in
the action by Tina Morgan have not yet been quantified.

In Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton
Industries, Inc., a purported class action filed on December 11,
2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Solano, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, alleges damages as a result of, among other things, the
defendants' failure at the Vacaville, California facility to (i)
pay overtime wages, (ii) provide statutorily required meal breaks,
(iii) provide accurate wage statements, and (iv) pay all wages
owed upon termination. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief,
including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory
damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest,
and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages
sought in this action have not yet been quantified.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Obtained Summary Judgment in "Ciganek"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM CIGANEK, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-
03837-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the motion for
summary judgment filed by the defendants Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC (PRA), Hunt & Henriques, Michael Scott Hunt, and
Janalie Ann Henriques.  Judge Koh also vacated the case management
conference set for June 9, 2016.

The putative class action case was brought by William Ciganek, Jr.
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Judge Koh, however, found that the defendants' use of the Marin
Declaration did not violate the FDCPA.  The Marin Declaration
described Ciganek's unpaid credit account and was signed by PRA
employee Maria Marin.

A full-text copy of Judge Koh's June 7, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/PV1bao from Leagle.com.

William Ciganek, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Raeon Rodrigo
Roulston, Consumer Law Center, Inc. & Fred W. Schwinn, Consumer
Law Center, Inc..

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Hunt & Henriques, Michael
Scott Hunt, Janalie Ann Henriques, Defendants, represented by
Tomio Buck Narita -- tnarita@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP,
Jeffrey A. Topor -- jtopor@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP &
Jennifer Lawdan Yazdi -- jyazdi@snllp.com -- Simmonds and Narita
LLP.


PRIDE TRANSPORT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on June 13 disclosed that it filed a truck
driver class action lawsuit against Pride Transport, Inc. alleging
that the transportation company failed to correctly pay their
California truck drivers for all their non-driving time, including
time spent working when they were not driving the company's
trucks.  The Pride Transport truck driver wage class action is
currently pending in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, Case
No. 16CV01337.

The wage class action filed against Pride Transport, Inc. by the
San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik claims that trucking company allegedly failed to have a
company wide policy that gave their Golden State truck drivers
full off-duty thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods in
accordance with California law.  The Pride Transport truck driver
class action claims that the failure to provide thirty minute meal
breaks is allegedly evidenced by Pride Transport's business
records.

The class action lawsuit also claims that Pride Transport truck
drivers were allegedly paid on a piece-rate basis.  The class
action claims that the truck drivers were allegedly not paid all
minimum wages because the Complaint claims the drivers were only
paid while driving.  The class action claims that the truck
drivers should have been paid minimum wages for their non-driving
tasks.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is a labor law firm with law
offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles
County, Sacramento County, San Francisco County and Chicago,
Illinois.  The firm represents employees on a contingency basis
for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay,
discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, truck driver
claims, and other types of illegal workplace conduct.


QUALITY CONSULTING: "Todd" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
David Todd, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Quality Consulting and Security Services,
Inc. and Chris A. Vaughan, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
6:16-cv-00494 (E.D. Tex., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages as well as other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides consulting and security services to businesses
throughout Texas where Todd worked as a security guard.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq.
     Mary L. Scott, Esq.
     James E. Hunnicutt, Esq.
     SPENCER SCOTT PLLC
     Two Lincoln Centre
     5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
     Dallas, TX 75240-6271
     Tel: (972) 458-5319
     Fax: (972) 770-2156
     Email: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com
            mscott@spencerscottlaw.com
            jhunnicutt@spencerscottlaw.com


RED RABBIT: "Torres" Seeks to Recover OT, Spread of Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Red Rabbit, LLC, and Rhys Wayne Powell,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04245 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2016), seeks
to recover overtime compensation, spread of hours pay and
statutory penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the the
New York Labor Law.

Red Rabbit provides school meals for over 150 schools in the New
York City area where Plaintiff was employed as porter, food buyer
and cook. Powell owns Red Rabbit.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
     Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
     Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 300-0375


RP FIELD: Representative Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Bohrer Brady, LLC on June 13 disclosed that a federal class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a field representative against
RP Field Services, LLC and National Creditors Connection, Inc.,
alleging the companies failed to pay federally mandated overtime
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week.  The lawsuit
seeks class certification on behalf of all former and current
field representatives who were allegedly not paid overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in workweek.  The field
representative is represented by Bohrer Brady, LLC.

RP Field Services, LLC and National Creditors Connection, Inc. are
field contact service producers.  RP Field Services, LLC claims to
be an exclusive regional vendor of National Creditors Connection,
Inc.   Field representatives make contact with debtors who are in
arrears in order to deliver collection material, instigate calls
between the debtor and the companies and photograph collateral
that is the subject of the debt.
The lawsuit claims that RP Field Services, LLC and National
Creditors Connection, Inc. have misclassified field
representatives as independent contractors in an attempt to avoid
payment of overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  The FLSA requires most employers in the United States
to pay non-exempt employees overtime pay at one and one-half times
the regular pay rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The lawsuit seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, interest and costs.
Plaintiff is represented by Philip Bohrer and Scott Brady --
scott@bohrerbrady.com -- from Bohrer Brady, LLC, in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

The case is entitled Zeno v. RP Field Services, LLC and National
Creditors Connection, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-01136 and is filed in the
Southern District of Texas Houston Division.


ROFIN-SINAR: Faces Merger-Related Litigation in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------
Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. on March 16, 2016, entered into a
Merger Agreement with Coherent, Inc. ("Coherent") and Rembrandt
Merger Sub Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coherent ("Merger
Sub") providing for, subject to the terms and conditions of the
Merger Agreement, the acquisition of the Company by Coherent at a
price of $32.50 per share, without interest (the "Merger
Consideration"), through the Merger of Merger Sub with and into
the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coherent.

Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action was filed on April 8, 2016, in the Circuit Court of Wayne
County, Michigan against the Company, our directors, Coherent and
Merger Sub. On behalf of all public stockholders, Plaintiff
alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors and aiding and
abetting of such breaches by the Company and Coherent. Plaintiff's
claims arise out of the approval by the directors of the Merger
Agreement, together with allegations that the consideration to be
paid to the stockholders in the Proposed Transaction is
inadequate. To date, the Company has not been served with the
lawsuit. The Company believes that the claims are without merit
and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. It is possible that
additional complaints containing similar claims may be filed in
the same or other courts, naming the same or additional
defendants.

The Company's By-Laws require stockholders bringing such claims to
file them in Chancery Court of Delaware, absent written consent
from the Company. The Company has not provided such consent with
respect to the foregoing matter.

In addition, the Company's Certificate of Incorporation and By-
laws provide for indemnification of the Company's officers and
directors in this type of litigation to the extent permitted by
the Delaware General Corporation Law, and the Company maintains a
directors' and officers' liability insurance policy.


ROTUNDA CONDOMINIUMS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Reyes" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NICOLE REYES ET AL., v. JULIA PLACE
CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. ET AL., SECTION: "J" (3),
Civil Action No. 12-2043 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl J. Barbier granted
a second motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, The
Rotunda Condominiums Homeowners Association Inc.

Judge Barbier concluded that "all claims against Rotunda asserted
in this lawsuit have been eliminated. The Court's class
definitions exclude Rotunda completely based on the Court's
previous finding that Rotunda did not collect usurious fees within
the two-year period. In addition, the Court's previous rulings
eliminated the claims against Rotunda under the [Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act] and [Louisiana Condominium Act]. Thus,
no claims against Rotunda remain. Accordingly, Rotunda is entitled
to summary judgment."

A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's June 7, 2016 order and reasons
is available at https://is.gd/9WFTOy from Leagle.com.

The class action lawsuit was brought by Nicole Reyes and Mike
Sobel on behalf of themselves and other condominium owners at
various properties throughout New Orleans against their respective
condominium associations as well as Steeg Law LLC.  The plaintiffs
alleged that the defendants have engaged in debt collection
practices that violate state and federal law.

Nicole Reyes, Patrick Andras, Plaintiffs, represented by Todd G.
Crawford -- tcrawford@frfirm.com -- Fowler Rodriguez, George J.
Fowler, III -- fow@frfirm.com -- Fowler Rodriguez & John Steven
Garner -- jgarner@frfirm.com -- Fowler Rodriguez.

Mike Sobel, Plaintiff, represented by Todd G. Crawford, Fowler
Rodriguez & John Steven Garner, Fowler Rodriguez.

MESA Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Paula Marcello Wellons -- pwellons@twpdlaw.com --
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Jonathan B. Womack --
jwomack@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Mills Row Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Carondelet
Place Condominiums Owners Association, Inc., Gallery Row
Condominiums Association, Inc., Henderson Condominium Association,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A. Roussel --
elizabeth.roussel@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP & Justin Boron -
- justin.boron@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP.

Lofts Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendant,
represented by John William Waters, Jr., Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan &
O'Bannon, Ernest Lynwood O'Bannon, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan &
O'Bannon & Kristin Grace Mosely-Jones, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan &
O'Bannon.

FQRV Resort Condominium Association, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Warren Horn -- whorn@hellerdraper.com -- Heller, Draper,
Hayden, Patrick & Horn, LLC & Heather Cheesbro, Heller, Draper,
Patrick & Horn, LLC.

Steeg Law, LLC, Margaret V Glass, Defendant, represented by
William Everard Wright, Jr. -- wwright@deutschkerrigan.com --
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Andrew Joseph Baer --
abaer@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP &
Judy Lynn Burnthorn -- jburnthorn@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.

Julia Place Condominium Association, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Ethan N. Penn, Musgrave, McLachlan & Penn, LLC & Amanda Huling
Aucoin, Musgrave, McLachlan & Penn, LLC.

Parkview Condominiums Homeowners Association, Defendant,
represented by Richard G. Duplantier, Jr., Galloway, Johnson,
Tompkins, Burr & Smith,Benjamin D. Reichard, Fishman Haygood,
Carlina C. Eiselen, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith &
Loretta G. Mince, Fishman Haygood.

Magazine Place Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Donald Carl Hodge, Jr., Law Office of
Donald C. Hodge, Jr..

1750 Saint Charles Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A. Roussel, Adams & Reese, LLP
& Justin Boron, Adams & Reese, LLP.

FQRV Condominium Association, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented
by James P. Doherty, III, Frederick Law Firm.

Property One Inc, Movant, represented by Richard A. Aguilar,
McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Gabriel A. Crowson, McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC.


RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Must Face Misdemeanor Probationers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Stockard, writing for Murfreesboro Post, reports that a
federal judge is rejecting defenses by Rutherford County and
Providence Community Corrections in their efforts to have a case
dismissed involving a scheme allegedly designed to extort money
from misdemeanor probationers.

In a June 9 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Sharp found
the county and PCC "cannot shield" themselves from the lawsuit
brought by probationers based on its arguments, nor does a "group
pleading" undermine the allegations brought by the plaintiffs, a
group of people caught in the county's former probation services
system.

Judge Sharp did find allegations against three individuals who
worked for PCC were insufficient and that expiration of the
contract between the county and PCC at the end of March renders
some of the plaintiffs' claims moot.

The judge ultimately ruled, however, arrests of probationers based
solely on nonpayment of fines and fees, without regard to their
ability to pay or whether they willfully avoided paying, will be
limited to an argument in the Fourth Amendment and, "Plaintiffs'
claims remain otherwise intact."

Filed in October 2015 by Washington, D.C.-based Equal Justice
Under Law, the class action lawsuit contends probationers were
"victims of an extortion scheme" perpetrated by Rutherford County
and PCC.

The lawsuit argues indigent probationers were caught in a system
designed to "extract" as much money from them as possible "through
a pattern of illegal and shocking behavior," often keeping them on
probation for years and paying thousands of dollars in fines and
fees, even after they pay the initial costs.

The judge previously ordered the release of jail inmates who were
arrested solely because of their inability to pay fines and fees
assessed by the courts and the private probation company.  The
county and PCC are challenging that ruling in the 6th Circuit
Court of Appeals.

The judge's previous order also prohibits the county from
executing arrest warrants for probation violations including
preset bond conditions that require probationers to pay for
release from custody.

Rutherford County began contracting with PCC several years ago
because it had a large number of outstanding fees it couldn't
collect from people convicted of misdemeanors in General Sessions
Court.

After the lawsuit's filing, PCC ended probation services in
Rutherford County, and county commissioners opted to set up a
county-run department to oversee some 3,200 probationers.

The judge decided the end of the contract between PCC and the
county would affect some of the complaints in the lawsuit but that
it would not end the litigation.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Gernandt" Suit Stayed Against Non-Debtors
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma extended to the non-debtor
defendants the Section 362 automatic stay of the consolidated
class action against Sandridge Energy, Inc., and stayed the case
in its entirety pending the resolution of SandRidge's bankruptcy.

The consolidated case is BARTON GERNANDT, JR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANDRIDGE
ENERGY, INC., et al., Defendants; CHRISTINA A. CUMMINGS, on behalf
of the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan, herself, and
alternatively, a class consisting of similarly situated
participants of the Plan, Plaintiff, v. SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC., et
al., Defendants; RICHARD A. MCWILLIAMS, individually and on behalf
of SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CIV-15-834-D, Consolidated with Case No. CIV-
15-892-D., CIV-15-1001-D (W.D. Okla.).

A full-text copy of Judge DeGiusti's June 7, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/bA5Olr from Leagle.com.

Barton Gernandt, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Jason E Roselius,
Mattingly & Roselius PLLC, Tanner W Hicks -- tanner@mroklaw.com --
Mattingly & Roselius PLLC, Donna S Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Edward W Ciolko --
eciolko@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Emmanuel E
Edem, Norman & Edem PLLC, James A Maro, Jr. -- jmaro@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Julie Eve Siebert-Johnson --
jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Mark K
Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Robert I Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP &
Tanya Korkhov -- tkorkhov@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP.

Christina A Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Emmanuel E Edem,
Norman & Edem PLLC, L Mark Bonner, Norman & Edem PLLC, Michael
Jason Klein -- mklein@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody, Tanner W
Hicks -- tanner@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly & Roselius PLLC & Mark K
Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Richard A McWilliams, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M Delluomo,
Delluomo & Crow, Tanner W Hicks, Mattingly & Roselius PLLC, Mark K
Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Daniel M Delluomo,
Delluomo & Crow, Mark K Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP
& Tanner W Hicks, Mattingly & Roselius PLLC.

Joe L. Rayos, Plaintiff, represented by Tanner W Hicks, Mattingly
& Roselius PLLC & Mark K Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP.

Sandridge Energy Inc, Stephen C Beasley, Jim J Brewer, Everett R
Dobson, William A Gilliland, Daniel W Jordan, Edward W Moneypenny,
Roy T Oliver, Jr, Jeffrey S Serota, J Michael Stice, Alan J Weber,
Dan A Westbrook, Mary L Whitson, Robert Scott Griffin, Cindy
Green, The Employee Benefits and Compensation Committee of
Sandridge Energy Inc, The Investment Committee of Sandridge Energy
Inc, Defendants, represented by Alexander K Talarides, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe, Brandon P Long, McAfee & Taft, Kenneth P
Herzinger, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice, M Todd
Scott, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Mark D Spencer, McAfee &
Taft & Michael F Lauderdale, McAfee & Taft.

Tom L Ward, Defendant, represented by Alexander K Talarides,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Christopher J Fawal, Latham &
Watkins, George S Corbyn, Jr., Corbyn Hampton PLLC, James C Word,
Latham & Watkins, Kenneth P Herzinger, Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe, pro hac vice, M Todd Scott, Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe, Margaret A Tough, Latham & Watkins &Steven M Bauer,
Latham & Watkins.

James D Bennett, Defendant, represented by Alexander K Talarides,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Brandon P Long, McAfee & Taft,
Kenneth P Herzinger, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice,
Mark D Spencer, McAfee & Taft & Michael F Lauderdale, McAfee &
Taft.

Reliance Trust Company, Defendant, represented by Ann W Ferebee,
Bryan Cave, Grant M Lucky, Ryan Whaley Coldiron Shandy PC, John R
Bielema, Jr., Bryan Cave, Michael P Carey, Bryan Cave, Patrick M
Ryan, Ryan Whaley Coldiron Shandy PC & William B Brockman, Bryan
Cave.

Eddie M LeBlanc, Defendant, represented by Kenneth P Herzinger,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe.

                    About SandRidge Energy

SandRidge Energy, Inc. (OTC PINK: SDOC) --
http://www.sandridgeenergy.com/-- is an oil and natural gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, with its principal focus on developing high-return,
growth-oriented projects in the U.S. Mid-Continent and Niobrara
Shale.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. and 24 of its subsidiaries each filed a
voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 16-32488) on May 16, 2016. The petitions
were signed by Julian M. Bott as chief financial officer.

The Debtors have hired Kirkland & Ellis LLP as general bankruptcy
counsel, Zack A. Clement PLLC as local counsel, Houlihan Lokey
Capital, Inc. as financial advisor, Alvarez & Marsal Holdings, LLC
as restructuring advisor and Prime Clerk LLC as claims and
noticing agent.

The cases are assigned to Judge David R Jones.


SELECT COMFORT: "Azimpour" Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corporation intends to defend against the case by
Saeid Azimpour, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

On December 4, 2015, Saeid Azimpour, a consumer, filed a purported
class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota alleging
he was fraudulently induced to purchase a down alternative pillow
at a Sleep Number store based on signage that indicated that the
pillow was 50% off. Plaintiff alleges that the price he paid for
the pillow was not truly 50% off the price at which Sleep Number
previously sold the pillow. Plaintiff asserts 10 causes of action
including consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, deceptive
trade practices under Minnesota law, violation of the Minnesota
false advertising law, unjust enrichment, violation of the
California unfair competition law, violation of the California
false advertising law and violation of the California remedies
act. Plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals who "purchased
one or more items from the Company advertised or priced at a
discount from the original retail price at any time between
December 1, 2011 and present." Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
damages, disgorgement and attorneys' fees. We believe the claims
asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend this case.


SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: No Motion to Certify Class Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
ServiceSource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no motion to
certify a class has been filed in the "Weller" securities action.

On July 8, 2015, a single plaintiff filed a putative securities
class action lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International, Inc.
et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Weller Lawsuit") against the Company and the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer. The Weller Lawsuit was
brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock during the period
January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014, and alleges violations under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act").   In connection with the
mandatory lead plaintiff appointment process under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), various law firms
issued press releases between July 2015 and September 2015 to
search for additional shareholders that would be willing to serve
as lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit.  This solicitation period
ended on September 29, 2015 and no other shareholders came
forward, leaving only the named plaintiff as the sole shareholder
seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. The court appointed Weller
a lead plaintiff on October 21, 2015. At this time, no motion to
certify a class has been filed. The Company believes that the
claims are meritless, and will vigorously defend itself against
such claims.


SKULLCANDY INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate 2 Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skullcandy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 12, 2016,
an alleged shareholder filed a putative securities class action
complaint against the Company and certain Company officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah, captioned Davis v. Skullcandy, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-
00121-RJS. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased common stock between August 7, 2015 and
January 11, 2016. It asserts that the Company and certain officers
and directors violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false or misleading
statements concerning positioning and expectations for future
growth. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable relief against the defendants. On March 28, 2016, an
alleged shareholder filed a substantially similar putative
securities class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, captioned Oswald v. Skullcandy,
Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-00246-CW.  The Oswald Complaint purports
to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock
between May 5, 2015 and January 11, 2016.  Plaintiffs have
requested that the court consolidate the two complaints. The
Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend them.


SURFSTITCH: Melbourne Law Firm Mulls Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Financial Review reports that Melbourne law firm
Gadens has urged aggrieved major shareholders in SurfStitch to
provide details about private briefings with the board and senior
management as it investigates whether to launch a $500 million
class action claim.

Gadens partner and chief counsel Glenn McGowan QC --
glenn.mcgowan@gadens.com -- wants to know what SurfStitch chairman
Howard McDonald told shareholders in a series of private briefings
the week before the company warned that earnings could fall 61 per
cent.

While some shareholders complained at the time the board had been
on "radio silence", Mr. McDonald told Chanticleer on April 29 he
had had 30 briefings with shareholders in the past week, including
four alone that afternoon.

SurfStitch shares fell from $1.22 to $1.03 that week on the
average volumes -- attracting the attention of the Australian
Securities Exchange -- before dropping 53 per cent to 48› when
SurfStitch finally issued a profit warning on May 3.

Mr. McGowan believes SurfStitch may have breached its continuous
disclosure obligations and failed to keep all shareholders
properly informed of what was going on at the former market
darling after former chief executive Justin Cameron resigned
unexpectedly in March, triggering a chain of events that wiped
almost $500 million off the company's market value.

"I can't think of reasons why private briefings to shareholders
are ever justified -- if you need to brief shareholders you need
to inform the markets," Mr. McGowan told The Australian Financial
Review on June 13.

"There's a reasonable amount of anger on the part of the
shareholders I've been in touch with," he said.  "They seem to
think they have not been looked after."

Mr. McGowan hopes that major shareholders who participated in the
private briefings will come forward with details about what was
discussed, saying: "I don't think there's any downside for them,
it's not as if they were colluding."

A SurfStitch spokeswoman said the company declined to comment on
the potential class action or the issue of selective briefings,
which are banned by the corporate regulator.

Mr. McGowan is also looking into deficiencies in SurfStitch's
December 2014 prospectus and whether the online surf and action
sports retailer should have warned investors it planned to embark
on an aggressive acquisition spree.

During 2015 SurfStitch outlaid more than $80 million in cash and
shares on non-core acquisitions, including Stab, an online surf
content platform, Magicseaweed, a user-generated surfing network,
Garage Entertainment, which makes surfing videos, and surfboard
manufacturer Surf Hardware International.

Co-founders Justin Cameron and Lex Pedersen wanted SurfStitch to
become the Amazon Prime of the action sports market, using unique
content to attract customers. However, problems integrating the
acquisitions have contributed to the retailer's problems.

"It's one thing to say generally they want to expand and another
to go on a spending binge the way they did," Mr. McGowan said.

After reviewing one content sharing agreement in the wake of
Mr. Cameron's departure, SurfStitch was forced to reverse $20.3
million in revenues and issue its third profit downgrade in six
months, forecasting an $18 million EBITDA loss.

Morgan Stanley analyst John Stavliotis said in a note on June 10
the circumstances behind the revenue reversal raised concerns
about SurfStitch's previously reported accounts.

"The company has guided for a return to profitability in 2017 and
positive cashflows, but we have no confidence that this can be
achieved in view of the poor performance and lack of evidence that
this online retailer can make money," said Mr. Stavliotis, who has
forecast net losses of $18.7 million this year and $7.8 million in
2017.

Mr. McGowan has urged current and past SurfStitch shareholders to
register their interest in participating in a class action claim,
which would seek to recover funds from the company's insurers.


SHELL OIL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that a former
well site foreman has filed suit against an oil company alleging
he was not paid overtime.

James Reynolds filed a complaint on behalf of others similarly
situated on May 6 in the Houston Division of the Southern District
of Texas against Shell Oil Co. alleging violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between May
2011 and July 2015, he worked for more than 40 hours per workweek
but was not paid any overtime compensation in violation of the
FLSA.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks all unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest at the highest
applicable rate, all legal fees and any other relief as the court
deems just. He is represented by Richard J. (Rex) Burch of
Bruckner Burch PLLC in Houston.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number
4:16-cv-01276


SOTHEBY'S: "Graham" Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the case, Robert
Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc., indicated that they will appeal
a district court decision that granted Sotheby's motion to dismiss
the remaining claims.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion
to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the
Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is
preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, the
plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss.
The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March
12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing
the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated
the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs
appealed this ruling. On May 5, 2015, an en banc panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming
the lower court decision that the Resale Royalties Act was
unconstitutional insofar as it sought to apply to sales outside of
the state of California. The plaintiffs filed a motion for
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January
11, 2016. On April 12, 2016, the district court granted Sotheby's
motion to dismiss the remaining claims in the action, which relate
to sales that occurred in California. The plaintiffs have
indicated that they will appeal this decision.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Settles Class Action Over Credit Card Data Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports that Spirit Airlines is
known for low base prices and a lot of extras you can buy, like
paying for checked baggage or getting a premium seat.

And if you used a credit card at an airport kiosk to buy them, a
class action settlement could mean up to $1,000 for you.

The allegation is that receipts had too many digits of the card
number.  Government rules that no more than five can be listed.
They want to make sure consumers aren't at risk for losing
sensitive data.

Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com said the lawsuit settlement
is for incidents after August 29, 2012.


STERICYCLE INC: Class Action Pending in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against a class action complaint in Pennsylvania.

The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and
on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our
customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The
complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action
and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief."

"The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or
"whistle blower") action captioned United States of America ex
rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390
which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously
disclosed.

"Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and
state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted
claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New
York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action").
On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally
denying the allegations therein.

"On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint and a Motion for Class
Certification in the MDL Action. The Motion requests that the
court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain of our
small quantity customers who received rate increases. We intend to
strongly contest the Motion.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against
each of these lawsuits."

Stericycle is a business-to-business services provider with a
focus on regulated and compliance solutions for healthcare,
retail, and commercial businesses.


SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Settlement Conference Scheduled in May
---------------------------------------------------------
Symmetry Surgical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that a settlement conference
was scheduled for May 13, 2016 to confirm a class action
settlement.

On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint
challenging the company's former parent's merger and the Company's
spin-out as a stand-alone public company was filed by Resolution
Partners, an alleged stockholder of SMI, and all others similarly
situated, in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana.
The complaint named as defendants Symmetry Medical Inc. ("SMI"),
the members of the board of directors of SMI, Genstar Capital LLC,
Tecomet's sponsor ("Genstar"), Tecomet, Holdings and TecoSym Inc.
The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
members of the SMI board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Resolution Partners and SMI stockholders during merger
negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and
approving the Merger, and that Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided
and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaint further alleges that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical with the SEC on
September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement
of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain allegedly material
information. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive
relief enjoining consummation of the Merger, compensatory and/or
rescissory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees.
The parties settled the suit prior to the consummation of the
transaction, for no additional consideration and a few additional
disclosures filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a
claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either
through agreement or via a court hearing.  The Company has agreed
with SMI to share equally in any fee award, up to 50% of the
remaining insurance deductible.   The parties have agreed to a
settlement of all claims based on the Form 8-k that was filed
prior to the closing on the transaction and which shared
additional information related to it. There was a settlement
conference scheduled for May 13, 2016 to confirm settlement. The
Company does not believe this will have a significant impact on
its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

                           *     *     *

On May 2, 2016, RoundTable Healthcare Partners ("RoundTable"), a
private equity firm focused exclusively on the healthcare
industry, announced that it has entered into a definitive
agreement to acquire Symmetry Surgical Inc. for a total equity
value of roughly $140.3 million. Symmetry, based in Nashville, TN,
is a marketer of reusable, reposable and single-use surgical
instrumentation and specialty devices. The transaction is subject
to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the
late second or early third quarter. See https://is.gd/NuXC3C


TACO BELL: Expert's Analysis on Fee Award Critical, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley A. Boone found that the analysis of the defendant's
expert will be helpful in determining the reasonableness of the
award of attorney fees requested by the plaintiffs in the case
captioned IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case No. 1:07-cv-
01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs have submitted a motion requesting attorney fees
and costs of approximately seven million dollars.  The defendants
have filed an opposition which contains the declaration of Andre
E. Jardini who analyzed the reasonableness of the requested fees.
The plaintiffs then sought to depose the defendants' expert.

In an order dated June 7, 2016, a full-text copy of which is
available at https://is.gd/AjEJdE from Leagle.com, Judge Boone
ruled as follows:

          -- denying the plaintiffs' ex parte application for an
             order continuing the hearing on the plaintiff's
             motion for attorney fees

          -- denying the plaintiffs' request for leave to depose
             Andre E. Jardini

          -- denying the plaintiffs' request in the alternative
             to strike the declaration of Andre E. Jardini

          -- denying the plaintiffs' motion to defer ruling on
             the motion for attorney fees

          -- granting the plaintiffs' request to file an
             oversized reply, which shall not exceed 15 pages and
             which shall be filed on or before June 10, 2016.

Sandrika Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski -- andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC, Jennifer Renee Bagosy --
jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law Group,
Jonathan Sing Lee -- jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC, Monica Balderrama -- mbalderrama@initiativelegal.com --
Initiative Legal Group APC, Raul Perez --
raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria
Labat -- rebecca.labat@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Robert J. Drexler -- robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R.
Chandler & Matthew Thomas Theriault --
matthew.theriault@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Renee Bagosy,
Capstone Law Group & Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC.

Miriam Leyva, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski,
Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul
Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC,
Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC & Timothy Donahue, Law Offices
Of Timothy Donahue.

Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski,
Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee, Capstone Law APC, Marc Primo
Pulisci, Initiative Legal Group LLP, Matthew Thomas Theriault,
Capstone Law APC & Monica Balderrama, Initiative Legal Group APC.

Loraine Naranjo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Kenneth Yoon, Law Offices Of Kenneth
H. Yoon,Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Peter M. Hart,
Law Offices of Peter M. Hart, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC,
Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone
Law APC & Larry W. Lee, Diversity Law Group.

Endang Widjaja, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Jerusalem F. Beligan, Bisnar Chase,
LLP, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez,
Capstone Law APC,Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC & Robert J.
Drexler, Capstone Law APC.

Christopher Duggan, Debra Doyle, Hilario Escobar, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Matthew
Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC,
Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone
Law APC, Joseph Hoff, Law Offices Of Mark Yablonovich,Mark
Yablonovich, Law Offices Of Mark Yablonovich & Patrick Joseph
Clifford, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich.

Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey --
mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton,
Nora K. Stiles -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton & Tracey Adano Kennedy --
tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


TEAM HEALTH: Opposition to Fee Application Due June 30
------------------------------------------------------
Team Health Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and the
other former defendants in a consolidated class action have until
June 30, 2016, to file any opposition to plaintiffs' application
for the payment of their attorneys' fees and expenses.

On August 14, 2015, prior to the closing of the IPC Transaction, a
purported shareholder of IPC filed a complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery captioned Smukler v. IPC Healthcare, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 11392-CB), on behalf of a purported class of  IPC
shareholders. The lawsuit names as defendants IPC, each of its
directors at the time the merger with the Company was announced
(the Individual Defendants), the Company, and Intrepid Merger Sub,
Inc. (Sub). The August 14, 2015 complaint alleged that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, failing to take appropriate steps to maximize the
value of IPC to its shareholders, failing to value IPC properly,
and taking steps to avoid competitive bidding by alternate
potential acquirers. The complaint also alleged that IPC, the
Company, and Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The complaint
sought, among other things, certification of the action as a class
action; injunctive relief enjoining the merger; an accounting of
all damages purportedly suffered by the plaintiff and the class
(including rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the
class); and the fees and costs associated with the litigation. On
August 18, 2015, an additional lawsuit was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, asserting similar claims and allegations to
those in the Smukler lawsuit and seeking similar relief on behalf
of the same putative class. Crescente v. Singer, et al. (Case No.
11405-CB).

Additionally, on August 19, 2015, prior to the closing of the IPC
Transaction, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California in Los Angeles County. Khemthong v. IPC
Healthcare Networks, Inc., et al. (No. BC 591953). The lawsuit
asserted similar claims and allegations to those in the Smukler
lawsuit and sought similar relief on behalf of the same putative
class. On August 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed a request for
voluntary dismissal of the suit without prejudice, and on August
28, 2015, the court entered an order granting that request.
Pursuant to a September 11, 2015 order from the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the Consolidation Order), the Smukler and Crescente
actions were consolidated, and all further litigation relating to
or arising out of the Company's merger with IPC were directed to
be consolidated with such actions under the caption In re IPC
Healthcare, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Case No. 11392-CB) (the
Consolidated Action).

On September 17, 2015, an action captioned Spencer v. IPC
Healthcare, Inc. (Case. No. 11516-CB) was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery. Under the Consolidation Order, such action is
required to be consolidated with the previously-filed actions. On
September 18, 2015, a verified consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the Consolidated Action (the Consolidated Complaint).
The Consolidated Complaint alleges substantially the same breaches
of fiduciary duty as the August 14, 2015 complaint in the Smukler
action, and additionally alleges that the Individual Defendants
breached their duty of disclosure by failing to disclose to IPC
shareholders all material information necessary for them to
evaluate the merger. On October 2, 2015, the defendants in the
Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On November 6, 2015, the Company and the other defendants in the
Consolidated Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action providing for the
settlement and the release of all claims that were or could have
been brought against the Company and the other defendants in the
Consolidated Action based upon a duty arising under Delaware law
to disclose or not omit material information in connection with
the IPC Transaction, upon entry of a final order by the Delaware
Court of Chancery approving the settlement. The Memorandum of
Understanding contemplated that, subject to completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement.

Following a series of rulings by the Court of Chancery in other
lawsuits challenging mergers, the Company and the other defendants
in the Consolidated Action agreed with the plaintiffs that the
Memorandum of Understanding would be superseded and replaced by
the voluntary dismissal of the Consolidated Action on the basis
that it was mooted by the disclosures contained in the Current
Report on the Form 8-K that the Company filed with the SEC on
November 6, 2015. On April 12, 2016, the Court entered an order
granting plaintiffs' request to voluntarily dismiss the
Consolidated Action as moot and setting a briefing schedule for
plaintiffs to make an application to the Court for the payment of
their attorneys' fees and expenses. This schedule provides that
plaintiffs must make any such application by May 19, 2016, that
the Company and the other former defendants in the Consolidated
Action shall file any opposition to such application by June 30,
2016, and that plaintiffs shall file any reply papers by July 14,
2016.


TELEXFREE INC: Scam Participants Ordered to Return Money
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Eckelbecker, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reports that
Jose Arantes Neto was working as a cleaner in 2012 when his boss
offered him a business opportunity: Make money promoting an
internet telephone service.

Mr. Neto watched a YouTube video for instructions, then started
posting online advertisements for the company.

"Soon I started to notice that the more advertisements I posted,
the more money I made," he said, in a filing in U.S. Bankruptcy
Court.

It all came crashing down in 2014, however, when TelexFree Inc. of
Marlboro collapsed amid state and federal allegations that the
business was actually an illegal pyramid scheme.  Mr. Neto's boss,
Carlos N. Wanzeler of Northboro, a principal in TelexFree, fled to
his native Brazil.

Now, Mr. Neto and thousands of other people worldwide who
allegedly made it to the profitable top of the pyramid are facing
a bankruptcy court official's demand that they pay back what they
gained, so funds can go to those who lost money on TelexFree.

Some are protesting the class action lawsuit, saying they never
made as much money as claimed by bankruptcy trustee Stephen Darr.

"It appears from the records that the funds were paid to the
people," said Wendy M. Mead, a Worcester lawyer representing seven
defendants facing claims they were "net winners" in the scheme.
"The reality is that there was very little cash these defendants
received."

Since its collapse, TelexFree has become the focus of sprawling
civil, criminal and bankruptcy cases that have touched people
across the globe.

Up to 1.9 million people worldwide may have participated in
TelexFree, and the company allegedly took in about $340 million
while promising to pay out more than $5 billion, according to
bankruptcy documents.  Prosecutors say most of the revenue came
from people who paid to promote TelexFree, mostly by placing
online advertisements on websites.

James M. Merrill, a principal in the business with Mr. Wanzeler,
is confined to his Ashland home awaiting trial in October on
federal fraud charges.  He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
As of early 2015, federal authorities had seized cash, bank
accounts and other TelexFree assets valued at about $100 million.

Mr. Darr, aided by lawyers and forensic accountants tasked with
analyzing TelexFree's voluminous computer records, is looking for
more funds and estimates about 15,000 U.S. residents received more
from TelexFree than they paid in.

Another 78,000 people outside the country may be net winners,
according to Mr. Darr.

Recovering money that a bankrupt business or company fraudulently
transferred before filing for relief is one of the standard
actions open to trustees, but trustees do have to prove the
transfer happened, said Kevin McGee, a business and bankruptcy
lawyer in the Worcester firm of Matuzek & McGee.

"They would have to show a cancelled check, that's the most common
way to show it, or some bank record or some sort of receipt," Mr.
McGee said.

TelexFree's workings are particularly complicated because
participants could buy into it by paying other participants.
Defendants in the class action lawsuit have limited access to
TelexFree records so far, and many don't speak English and are
frightened, according to Ms. Mead.  Some made money, mostly in the
low "tens of thousands" of dollars, she said, but some are also
modestly employed.

"Somebody who makes pizzas in Chelsea does not have $2.5 million
to settle claims," she said.

Mr. Neto, who allegedly made a net profit of $2.6 million on
TelexFree, has filed his own response to the trustee's lawsuit. It
includes what he says are 2013 tax returns showing he made far
less than $2.6 million.

In his court filing, he said he recruited 24 other people into
TelexFree, and put most of what he gained back into the company.
The rest went to family and daily expenses.

"Now, I still pay rent to live," his filing states.

When contacted by telephone, Mr. Neto put a woman on the line who
said he did not want to speak about TelexFree.

Court papers list his address in Worcester, but people at that
home say he no longer lives there.

Rosane Cruz of Worcester also denies receiving the $819,327 she
allegedly gained.  A Brazilian immigrant, she said she once worked
for Mr. Wanzeler, and got into TelexFree in December 2012.
"The entire Brazilian community, they were not only talking about
it, they were in TelexFree," she said.

She eventually quit her job in child care and devoted her time to
promoting TelexFree and helping others promote it, she said.  She
rented hotel rooms, she said, for meetings to speak to others
about TelexFree, and showed people how to use the telephone
service and how to place the advertisements.

Much of the revenue she earned, expressed in the TelexFree system
as "credits," got plowed back into TelexFree, she said.  In
addition, she said, she always believed TelexFree was a legitimate
business.

At the end, Ms. Cruz said, she had about $140,000 in credits in
her TelexFree account, money that would have funded her
retirement.  Now she fears she could lose her home near
Worcester's Grant Square.

"This is absurd.  This is craziness," Ms. Cruz said.  "How am I
going to say that I didn't make that money?"


THERANOS INC: Walgreens Ends Partnership Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Siconolfi, Christopher Weaver and John Carreyrou, writing
for The Wall Street Journal, report that drugstore operator
Walgreen Co. formally ended a strained alliance with Theranos Inc.
as regulators near a decision on whether to impose sanctions
against the embattled Silicon Valley firm.

Some officials at the Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. unit had grown
frustrated at not getting more details and documentation from
Theranos after learning it had corrected tens of thousands of
blood tests, including many performed on samples collected from
patients at Walgreens pharmacies, according to people familiar
with the partnership.

In a news release on June 12, Walgreens said it had told Theranos
it was terminating their nearly three-year-old partnership,
effective immediately, and that it was shutting down Theranos lab-
testing services in Walgreens locations.  It said it would work
over the next several days to help transition its customers.

"In light of the voiding of a number of test results, and as the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has rejected Theranos's
plan of correction and considers sanctions, we have carefully
considered our relationship with Theranos and believe it is in our
customers' best interests to terminate our partnership," Brad
Fluegel, Walgreens' senior vice president and chief healthcare
commercial market development officer, said in a statement.

The move is a significant blow to Theranos.  The 40 Theranos
blood-draw sites inside Walgreens stores in Arizona, which the
company calls "wellness centers," have been the primary source of
revenue for Theranos and its conduit to consumers, analysts say.
The tie-up also has given the blood-testing firm a stamp of
credibility since it was publicly announced in September 2013.

Walgreens leaders decided to end the partnership after regulators
disclosed problems at Theranos in late January, but held off on
finalizing the separation because the company feared Theranos
might sue, said people familiar with the matter.

Without Walgreens, Theranos would no longer be competing with
major labs.  To regain its access to consumers, it would have to
forge a new retail partnership, offer its blood-testing services
directly to more doctors' offices or open its own blood-draw
sites, among other options.  It already has moved to open a blood-
testing center in Arizona.  Recently, the company has been
exploring a tie-up with another pharmacy or supermarket, according
to a person familiar with the matter.

Michael Polzin, a Walgreens spokesman, declined to comment beyond
the news release.

Theranos spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said, "Quality and safety are
our top priorities, and we are working closely with government
officials to ensure that we not only comply with all federal
regulations but exceed them."

Ms. Buchanan added, "We are disappointed that Walgreens has chosen
to terminate our relationship and remain fully committed to our
mission to provide patients access to affordable health
information and look forward to continuing to serve customers in
Arizona and California through our retail locations."

CMS, the agency that inspected Theranos's Newark, Calif., lab last
fall, will inform Theranos in roughly the next two weeks about its
determination on sanctions, said a person familiar with the
matter.  A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment

In recent days, some Walgreens officials became more convinced
that Theranos would face painful CMS sanctions, according to
people familiar with the matter.  The agency previously said it
had found major deficiencies at the California lab, including at
least one it said posed an immediate threat to patients.

It proposed in a March letter closing the laboratory down and
barring Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes from the industry for at
least two years.

"Due to the comprehensive nature of the corrective measures we've
taken over the past several months, which has been affirmed by
several experts, we are hopeful that CMS won't impose sanctions,"
Theranos's Ms. Buchanan has said.  "But if they do, we will work
with CMS to address all of their concerns."

Senior Walgreens officials believe that any significant sanctions
would give them a defense if Theranos were to sue Walgreens for
breach of contract, people familiar with the matter said.

Top Walgreens leaders previously worried they could face
litigation seeking massive damages if they unilaterally closed
Theranos's testing sites at their Arizona stores, according to
people with knowledge of the thinking inside Walgreens.

Walgreens managers also grew increasingly frustrated in recent
weeks with Theranos as they sought information about the extent of
test reports it had corrected or voided.

The drugstores' senior leadership team learned Theranos had told
regulators it was voiding or correcting tens of thousands of
reports in mid-April.  In early May, Walgreens asked Theranos to
provide details of the corrected reports, according to people
familiar with matter.

Theranos told Walgreens the corrections were part of the normal
process of coming back into compliance with regulators and only
involved tests performed in the California lab, according to
people familiar with the matter.

On May 18, The Wall Street Journal reported that Theranos had
voided all results for tests run on its proprietary Edison device
in 2014 and 2015, and that it had also corrected some blood
coagulation tests performed in a second laboratory it operates in
Scottsdale, Ariz.

Since then, Theranos hasn't provided Walgreens some specific
information and documentation about blood tests voided for its
customers, including which specific customers and tests, according
to a person familiar with the matter.  The issue is important
because any erroneous results could throw off health decisions
patients make with their doctors.  Theranos has said it voided the
tests out of an abundance of caution, and doesn't think any
patients were affected.

In recent weeks, Walgreens also was named as a co-defendant in one
of three civil lawsuits filed by consumers against Theranos. The
suits, which seek class-action status, allege that Theranos misled
the public about the nature and accuracy of its blood-testing
technology.

Walgreens declined to comment.  Theranos said the suits are
without merit and that it would vigorously defend itself against
them.

Current and former Walgreens officials say Theranos veiled its
technology and operations in secrecy from the early days of the
relationship between the two companies.

Some of the officials said Theranos told Walgreens' team it could
accurately perform dozens of tests on just a drop of blood using
its proprietary testing system, the Journal reported in late May.

The company later told regulators it had performed just 12 tests
using the device and that by late last summer, it used
conventional devices made by companies like Siemens AG to perform
all of its tests.

In exiting the partnership, Walgreens doesn't expect to recoup its
investment of at least $50 million in Theranos, according to
people familiar with the thinking of some officials at the
drugstore chain.


TILE SHOP: Court Rules on Discovery in Retirement Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYERS RETIREMENT FUND, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case Nos. 16-mc-80062-JSC, 16-mc-80076 JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to
compel and denied the defendants' motion to compel Gotham City
Research, LLC's compliance with third-party subpoenas.

The discovery dispute arose out of a putative securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  The plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit
following the publication of a negative report about defendant
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. by Gotham City Research, LLC, an investor
who shorted Tile Shop stock.  Both the plaintiffs and the
defendants served third-party subpoenas on Gotham seeking
documents and depositions.  When Gotham failed to comply with the
subpoenas, the parties filed separate actions to compel Gotham's
compliance.  The actions have been related and Gotham filed a
joint opposition to the parties' separate motions to compel.
Gotham objects to both subpoenas as shielded from production by
the journalist privilege, seeking trade secrets, and as an undue
burden.

The parties' motions asked the court to decide whether the federal
qualified journalist privilege applies to an investor whose
publications are limited to negative reports about the companies
in which the investor has taken a short position.

Judge Corley found that the privilege does not apply to Gotham on
the record presented in the case.  The judge thus granted the
plaintiffs' motion in part, but denied the defendants' motion
because notwithstanding Gotham's unsuccessful privilege assertion,
the defendants have not shown the relevance of the information
they seek.

A full-text copy of Judge Corley's June 7, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/IMswa5 from Leagle.com.

Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Christopher T. Gilroy -- cgilroy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joseph Russello -- jrussello@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Kenneth Joseph Black --
kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Matthew
Leo Mustokoff -- mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and
Check, LLP, Paul Aaron Breucop -- pbreucop@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Samuel H. Rudman --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Stacey
Marie Kaplan -- skaplan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP & William J Geddish -- wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman Dowd LLP.

Erie County Employees' Retirement System, Luc Dewulf, Plaintiffs,
represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Christopher T. Gilroy, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Joseph Russello, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Matthew Leo
Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Paul Aaron
Breucop, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Samuel H. Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Stacey Marie Kaplan, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & William J Geddish, Robbins Geller
Rudman Dowd LLP.

Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicholas Poli
Chan -- nick.chan@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels.

Gotham City Research LLC, Witness, represented by David William
Shapiro, Boersch Shapiro LLP.


TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Hearing Set for July 27
-------------------------------------------------------
Tobira Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has set a
settlement hearing for July 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

On February 2, 2015, a purported stockholder of Regado filed a
putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado
Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware, or the Court, challenging the proposed
stock-for-stock merger of Regado with Tobira, or the Proposed
Merger. On February 25, 2015, a second, related putative class
action (captioned Gilboa v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No.
10720-CB) was filed in the Court challenging the Proposed Merger.
On May 4, 2015, the Proposed Merger was consummated and Tobira
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regado and changed its name to
Tobira Development, Inc. The complaints named as defendants: (i)
each member of Regado's Board of Directors, (ii) Regado, (iii)
Private Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc. Plaintiffs
alleged that Regado's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Regado's stockholders by, among other things, (a) agreeing to
merge Regado with Private Tobira for inadequate consideration, (b)
implementing a process that was distorted by conflicts of
interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement that are alleged to favor Private Tobira and deter
alternative bids. Plaintiffs also generally alleged that the
entity defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duty by the directors.

On March 25, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
assigned lead counsel for plaintiffs (captioned In re Regado
Biosciences, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
10606-CB). On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion
for preliminary injunction. On April 20, 2015, the parties agreed
in principle to resolve the litigation (subject to approval by the
Court) and signed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the
terms of a proposed settlement to provide additional disclosures
related to the Merger Agreement and to cover Court-awarded fees.

On April 23, 2015, as part of the proposed settlement, Regado
provided additional disclosures to its stockholders. On May 4,
2015, Regado and Private Tobira completed the Merger. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the parties engaged in
confirmatory discovery. On April 22, 2016, the parties filed with
the Court a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement
and Release, or the Stipulation, which provides for a release of
all claims against defendants related to any disclosures
concerning the Merger and any fiduciary duty claims concerning the
decision to enter into the Merger. In addition, the Stipulation of
Settlement provides that the Company or its insurer(s) or
successor(s) in interest will be responsible for payment of, and
will not oppose, any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs up to $0.3 million which the Company recognized as an
accrued expense in its accompanying Condensed Balance Sheet as of
March 31, 2016. The settlement as set forth in the Stipulation and
any award of attorneys' fees and expenses are subject to approval
by the Court, which has set a settlement hearing for July 27, 2016
at 2:00 p.m.

Tobira Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapies to treat liver disease, inflammation, fibrosis and HIV.


TRACY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a man has filed a class-action lawsuit against a city over
allegations he was not paid overtime.

Ryan Knight filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on June 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California against the city of Tracy alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked
for more than 40 hours at a given workweek but was not paid any
overtime compensation by the defendant. The plaintiff holds the
city of Tracy responsible because the defendant allegedly allowed
plaintiff to work overtime but did not pay any overtime
compensation to him.

The plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages plus interest and
liquidated damages equal to the unpaid wages, all legal fees and
any other relief as this court deems just. He is represented by
David E. Mastagni, Isaac S. Stevens and Ace T. Tate of Mastagni
Holstedt APC in Sacramento.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-01290-WBS-EFB


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in "Zolandz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff move for Class Certification and Relief from Memorandum,
Supporting Documents, and Automatic Briefing Requirements, in the
class action lawsuit styled CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00695-
CNC (E.D. Wisc.).

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: June 30 Hearing Set on Video Depositions
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico, reports that lawyers for
Donald Trump are fighting a legal move that could result in the
public seeing videos of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee
being subjected to pointed questions about his Trump University
real estate seminar program.

Class-action lawyers suing Trump for fraud over the Trump
University business attempted to file 48 video clips of the real
estate mogul at two recent depositions, including segments where
he offered prickly responses to what he called "harassment
questions."

The plaintiffs said they needed to file the videos to show Trump's
demeanor and to clarify some video segments not transcribed by a
court reporter, but in a filing on June 13 with a federal court in
San Diego, Trump's legal team called those reasons "disingenuous."

"Plaintiff offers no legitimate reason for seeking submission of
these videos, which are clearly intended to prejudice Mr. Trump,"
Trump lawyers Dan Petrocelli and David Kirman wrote.  "Plaintiff's
request to use video transcripts is an obvious attempt to
prejudice Mr. Trump."

Mr. Trump's attorneys did not explicitly refer to his presidential
bid or say what type of "prejudice" they believed was intended.
However, they noted that the credibility of witnesses is not
supposed to be considered by the judge at this point in a case.

Petrocelli and Kirman also served up a warning of sorts to U.S.
District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the plaintiffs by saying
that, if video submissions are permitted, Mr. Trump's side will
seek to file potentially unflattering video clips of depositions
from Trump University students and others "whose credibility could
be called into question based on their demeanor in the video."

"Admission of [the plaintiffs' video clips] could necessitate
defendant to respond in kind with similar videos, all of which
will result in many inefficiencies and will make the record
unnecessarily unmanageable," Mr. Trump's lawyers wrote.

A coalition of media organizations filed a motion with the judge
on June 10 asking him to lift any limits on the plaintiffs'
authority to release the full videos of Mr. Trump's depositions
conducted in December in New York and in January in Las Vegas.

Judge Curiel has yet to rule on that motion, but set a hearing on
that issue for June 30.

Trump launched a series of racially-charged attacks on the judge
earlier this month and has insisted that the judge has been
unfair, but the real estate developer's attorneys have never
raised those issues in court, nor have they moved to recuse Judge
Curiel.


UNITED RECOVERY: July 26 Initial Status Hearing Set in "Hurt"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Geraldine Hurt, Plaintiff, v. United Recovery Systems, LP, et al.,
the Defendant, Case No.: 1:16-cv-05641 (N.D. Ill.), ruling that
Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken as moot.

Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken without prejudice
to reinstate or file a new motion at a later date. Plaintiff has
preserved her right. Initial status hearing is set for July 26,
2016 at 9:00 a.m. At least four working days before the initial
status hearing, the parties shall conduct a FRCP 26(f) conference
and file a joint written Initial Status Report, not to exceed five
pages in length, and file the Court's Joint Jurisdictional Status
Report and deliver courtesy copies to this Court's Courtroom
Deputy in Room 1908. Counsel for the Plaintiff is warned that
failure to serve summons and complaint on Defendant will result in
a dismissal of the action pursuant to FRCP 4. Counsel for
Plaintiff is further directed to file with the Clerk of Court, the
appropriate return of service or waiver of service.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EyWRX0IY


UNITED SERVICES: Class-Action Sanctions to Impact Other Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that when
Chief U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III sanctions 16 attorneys
in a controversial insurance class-action case, it could make life
harder for the plaintiffs' lawyers who have other cases pending in
federal courts in Arkansas.

"The other judges with these lawyers' pending cases will now be
alert to the techniques of these lawyers," attorney Robert
Trammell of Little Rock said in an emailed statement to Arkansas
Business.  "They can expect more frequent objections to anything
they do."

Among those attorneys who will be sanctioned in Holmes' Fort Smith
courtroom on June 24 are class-action attorney John Goodson of
Texarkana, his law partner, Matt Keil, and W.H. Taylor of the
Fayetteville firm Taylor Law Partners.  Goodson, Keil and other
co-counsel have seven class-action insurance cases pending in
federal court.  Those cases were first filed in state courts in
Arkansas, but the defendants moved to federal court between
January 2014 and December 2015, as is allowed under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005.  Defendants in class-action cases
typically want to be in federal court, where it's more difficult
for the case to be certified as a class action and settlements
face more scrutiny from judges.

Mr. Goodson, who is married to Arkansas Supreme Court Justice
Courtney Goodson, has used procedural maneuvers to move several
class-action cases back to state court for settlement, with
defendants agreeing in order to settle faster and cheaper in state
courts.

Judge Holmes, the chief federal judge for the Western District of
Arkansas, found the practice to be an abuse of the judicial
process.  He has announced his plan to sanction 16 of the 17
attorneys on both sides of a case that he said was moved from his
court to state court in order to effect a settlement that
"benefited everyone but the class members."

The specific sanctions Holmes is considering center on requiring
the lawyers to disclose in future federal court cases that they
have been sanctioned for abusing the system.  Attorneys following
the case said the sanctions mean that class-action attorneys won't
be able to use the negotiating tool of offering the defendants the
option of going to state court for an easier settlement.

The sanctions will probably cause attorneys to think twice before
settling in state court a class-action case that has been filed in
federal court, said Georgene Vairo, a professor at Loyola Law
School at Los Angeles and author of "The Complete CAFA: Analysis &
Developments Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005."

"With this opinion, it is likely to deter plaintiffs' attorneys
and defense attorneys from bailing out of federal court to state
court to get a better result," she said.

Attorney John R. Elrod -- jelrod@cwlaw.com -- of Conner & Winters
LLP of Fayetteville, who is representing Goodson, Keil and other
class-action attorneys in the case, didn't return a call from
Arkansas Business.

Both the plaintiffs and the defense attorneys in the case have
maintained they did nothing wrong, but Holmes found that only one
of 17 lawyers was not involved in the abuse.

The plaintiffs' attorneys recently hired attorneys from the
New York law firm Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC, which was named one of
the top 100 trial lawyers in the U.S. in 2015 by Benchmark
Litigation, which covers the litigation and disputes market in
North America.  The attorneys also hired attorney Russell Post of
Houston, who is a "board-certified appellate specialist,"
according to his website.

"The entry of appearance of pretty high-powered attorneys to fight
this is because this is a precedent they won't be able to stomach
nationally," said Paul Love of the Heritage Law Office PLLC of
Searcy.  Mr. Love was the Arkansas counsel for the nonprofit
Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action
Fairness in Washington.

"They're coming in big guns because this is a big deal, and it's
not just limited to Fort Smith," he said.

Mr. Love had filed a friend of the court brief in the sanctions
case, but Judge Holmes ruled that the proposed brief was neither
solicited nor offered to the court in a reasonably timely manner.

Mr. Love said that federal judges in other districts might start
looking more closely to see if class-action cases that have been
dismissed from their courtrooms were then refiled in state court
for settlement purposes.  That's what happened in the case of Mark
and Katherine Adams v. United Services Automobile Association, but
Holmes didn't know it until he read a report on the class-action
maneuver in Arkansas Business in December.

Neither Post nor the attorneys from Joseph Hage returned a call
for comment.

Another consequence could be that judges in other pending cases
might replace the class members' attorneys with other attorneys,
said Lester Brickman, a professor of law at the Cardozo School of
Law in New York, where he is an expert in class actions and lawyer
fees.

"This is certainly within the power of the presiding judge,"
Mr. Brickman said.  "And I think it's at least plausible that, in
some of these cases, the class counsel who filed the action will
be unseated in favor of untainted lawyers."

The sanctions could also hurt the plaintiffs' attorneys when they
ask that their cases be certified as class actions by a judge,
said Ted Frank, director of the CEI's Center for Class Action
Fairness in Washington.

"The defendant will argue that these guys aren't going to
represent the class under federal rules adequately, and you should
deny the certification," he said.  "It's possible that the judge
might agree with that, which would adversely affect their class-
action practice."

Judge Cites 'Gamesmanship'

Judge Holmes had questioned the attorneys for their handling of
Adams v. USAA, which had been pending in his court for 17 months.
The case was dismissed from Holmes' court in June 2015 and refiled
the next day in Polk County Circuit Court for settlement purposes.

In December, Polk County Circuit Court Judge Jerry Ryan, who
didn't ask a single question about the settlement agreement,
awarded $1.85 million in fees and expenses to the plaintiffs'
attorneys.  USAA agreed to set aside $3.4 million for the nearly
15,000 potential class members, but as of Feb. 20, fewer than 5
percent of the potential class members had submitted claims. Under
the terms of the settlement, any money that wasn't claimed by
class members would be returned to USAA.

"The reality is that these kinds of highly questionable
settlements take place with great frequency and are approved by
judges," said Mr. Brickman, the law professor.

Mr. Trammell, the Little Rock attorney, had objected to the
settlement on behalf of some USAA members.  He has appealed the
case to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

Judge Holmes said in his filings that he wouldn't have approved
the settlement.  Both the defense attorneys and the plaintiffs'
lawyers maintained that they didn't do anything wrong in refilling
the case in state court.

Attorney John Emerson of Houston, who has handled class-action
cases in Arkansas but wasn't involved in the USAA case, also said
he thinks the attorneys acted properly in the handling of the
case.  "I know all of the lawyers," he said.  "They're all
excellent lawyers on both sides of the case."

He said it was their prerogative to refile the case in Polk
County.  And the Polk County Circuit Court judge "would have the
authority over the settlement," he said.  "So I don't quite
understand why there's any sort of controversy about this."

Judge Holmes saw it differently.  In the order issued on April 14,
Holmes concluded that the attorneys dismissed the case for the
improper purpose of evading federal court review.  He added that
the arrangement benefited everyone but the class members.

"The gamesmanship is improper in any case," Judge Holmes wrote.
"That it has become standard practice for some Respondents only
further convinces the Court that this conduct is abuse of judicial
process."

Still, a number of questions remain as to what the impact of the
sanctions will be, said Mr. Frank, of the Center for Class Action
Fairness.  "There's a lot that's uncharted here because most
judges don't scrutinize proceedings this closely," he said.  "And
most judges don't act to protect class members like this."

Attorneys Who Will Be Sanctioned

The following plaintiffs' attorneys will be sanctioned by Chief
U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III on June 24:

   Kenneth "Casey" Castleberry of Batesville
   Stephen C. Engstrom of Little Rock
   John Goodson of Texarkana
   D. Matt Keil of Texarkana
   Matthew L. Mustokoff of Radnor, Pennsylvania
   Timothy J. Myers of Fayetteville
   Richard E. Norman of Houston
   William B. Putman of Fayetteville
   Jason Earnest Roselius of Oklahoma City
   W.H. Taylor of Fayetteville
   A.F. "Tom" Thompson III of Batesville
   Stevan Earl Vowell of Fayetteville
   R. Martin "Marty" Weber Jr. of Houston

The following defense attorneys will be sanctioned:

   Wystan Ackerman of Hartford, Connecticut
   Stephen Edward Goldman of Hartford, Connecticut
   Lyn P. Pruitt of Little Rock


UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Sought in "Johnson" Case v. Treasury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff will and hereby moves the Court for an Order certifying
the class (the "Race Class" or the "Race Class Members"), in the
lawsuit styled DAVID JOHNSON, the PLAINTIFF, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; JACOB J. LEW, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; BETH
F. COBERT, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT;
VICTORIA A. LIPNIC, COMMISSIONER, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION; and Unknown Defendants, the DEFENDANTS,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00072-TSC (D.C.).

Accordingly, Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order certifying the
class as follows:

"All African-American individuals who were Revenue Agent in the
Series 0512; Attorney in the 0905 Series; Appeals Officer in the
GS 0930 Series and/or Criminal Investigator in the GS-1811 Series
at any time between October 1, 2004 and the Entry of Judgment in
the District Court."

The Plaintiff further moves for an Order appointing Plaintiff
David Johnson as representative of the Class and appointing
Plaintiff's Counsel as Counsel for the Class, and requiring the
federal Agency to identify all Class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oHX9l9RY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Johnson, Esq.
          901 East 56th Street,
          1C Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Telephone: 718-251-6063


UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Loses Bid to Moot TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Caren D. Enloe, Esq., of Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing &
Myers LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a district
court in Minnesota has shut the "back door" on a collection agency
who attempted to moot a putative class action by tendering the
maximum amount of damages sought to the plaintiff.  In Ung v.
Universal Acceptance Corp., C.A. No. 15-127, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
72861 (D. Minn. June 3, 2016), prior to the plaintiff's motion to
certify class, the defendant tendered to the named plaintiff a
check for the maximum amount of statutory TCPA damages sought on
plaintiff's individual claim, along with a letter offering to
stipulate to an awards of costs and an injunction prohibiting
further calls to the plaintiff's cell phone.  When the check was
returned and the offer rejected, the collection agency moved for
judgment asserting that the action was mooted, relying upon the
Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Campbell-Ewald v.
Gomez.

When the Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald v.
Gomez earlier this year regarding offers of judgment, a glimmer of
hope arose for defendants in the dissenting opinions of Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.  In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme
Court held that a Rule 68 offer of full statutory relief does not
moot a class action. See Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, __ U.S. __, 136
S. Ct. 663 (2016). In Campbell, the majority held that a case
becomes moot only "when it is impossible for a court to grant any
effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party." Id., 136 S.
Ct. at 670.  The court continued its rationale by noting that
since the defendant's offer lapsed without acceptance, they
retained the same stake in the litigation they had at the outset.
In other words, "[a]n unaccepted settlement offer-like any
unaccepted contract offer -- is a legal nullity, with no operative
effect." Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, __ U.S. __, 133 S.
Ct. 1523, 1534 (2013) (Kagan, J., dissenting).

In the dissenting opinions of Justice Roberts and Justice Alito,
however, hope was not lost.  Both noted that the majority in
Campbell-Ewald did not say that payment of complete relief would
lead to the same conclusion.  In fact, Justice Alito's dissent
went so far as to suggest that a defendant could moot a case by
paying over the money sought by plaintiff either by handing them a
certified check or by depositing the funds in an account in
plaintiff's name or with the court. Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.Ct. 663,
684.

In what was termed by the Minnesota district court as defendant's
attempt "to shoehorn its case through Campbell-Ewald's back door,
the defendant moved to dismiss the action arguing that by
tendering complete relief rather than merely offering it, the case
was moot.  The court disagreed and denied the motion. "[I]n this
court's view, there is no principled difference between a
plaintiff rejecting a tender of payment and on offer of payment .
. . Indeed, other than their labels, the two do not differ in any
appreciable way once rejected: in either case, the plaintiff ends
up in the exact same place he occupied before his rejection." Ung
at *13-14.  Moreover, the court was also persuaded by the fact
that the defendant's offer required further action by the court-
the entry of the stipulated injunction and the court remained
troubled by the fact that mooting the case would preclude the
court from entering the injunction.  The court also was disturbed
by the fundamental fact that mooting the entire action based upon
the individual claim being mooted would cause a fundamental
failure of the class action device, noting that for the class
action device to work, the court must have a reasonable
opportunity to consider and decide the motion for certification.
As stated by the court, "[a]ccepting Universal's argument would
place control of a putative class action in the defendant's hands
. . . The law does not countenance the use of individual offers to
thwart class litigation." Ung at *21.


UTZ QUALITY: Claims "Natural" Food Labeling Suits Lawyer-Driven
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Los Angeles-based attorney who focuses on mass tort litigation and
consumer class actions in connection with food, supplements and
other consumer packaged goods said a lawsuit filed in
May against Utz Quality Foods Inc. is one of numerous actions of
its kind that are "unjustified."

Those lawsuits are consumer class actions that challenge the
validity of products that use the word "natural" on their
labeling.

"These are lawyer-driven cases seeking to capitalize on the fact
that the term 'natural' is undefined by any regulatory agency,"
David Biderman -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie LLP
told Legal Newsline.

"For any products labeled 'natural,' lawyers seek to find some
ingredient that they can challenge.  The ingredients are usually
not chemicals, and are derived or part of plant materials.  The
lawyers try to suggest that the way the ingredients are produced
make the ingredients not 'natural.' They are wrong."

Lead plaintiff Cyrus Hashtpari of Ventura County, Calif., filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 18 against Utz Quality Foods,
alleging counts of common law fraud, intentional and negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
violations of California's civil, business and commercial codes.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges Utz mislabels its Dirty
Potato Chips brand product by claiming the chips are all natural
and contain no preservatives. Despite the all-natural claims on
the label, the plaintiff says in the complaint that the chips
actually contain non-natural, artificial and synthetic ingredients
and preservatives.

"These cases are an unjustified attempt to capitalize on the use
of the word 'natural' to somehow suggest that consumers are
confused," Mr. Biderman said.  "They are driven by lawyers and,
while it appears this trend is continuing, these cases should not
be brought.

"They don't help the public, and they create unnecessary issues
for food companies who define their labeling in accordance with
the applicable (Food and Drug Administration) regulations."

The plaintiff is asking the court to schedule a jury trial, and to
award the class compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, interests,
attorney fees and the costs associated with bringing the suit.

"If the court allows the case to move forward, there are strong
grounds for moving to dismiss the case because the term 'natural'
is not sufficiently defined to justify a claim that a reasonable
consumer would be confused or misled," Mr. Biderman said.

In addition, Mr. Biderman suggested that the company should ask
the court to dismiss or stay the class action suit under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction because the FDA has now invited
comments on whether it should define the term "natural".

"The courts should not intervene in these cases while the FDA is
considering the issue," Mr. Biderman said.  "One court -- a very
informed panel on the Ninth Circuit, an appellate court, has
already stayed a 'natural' lawsuit because of the pending FDA
proceedings.  The case should be stayed or dismissed."


VITAL THERAPIES: Response to Amended Suit Due July 1
----------------------------------------------------
Vital Therapies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, Vital
Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, the court set a deadline of
June 1, 2016, for lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint and
ordered Vital Therapies, Inc. and Messrs. Winters and Swanson to
respond to the amended complaint within thirty days of its filing.

On December 2, 2015, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, captioned Patrick A. Griggs v. Vital Therapies, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:15-cv-02700-JLS-NLS. On December 30, 2015, a
substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court,
captioned Alicia Beach Halverstadt v. Vital Therapies, Inc., et
al., No. 3:15-cv-02951-JLS-NLS. The complaints name as defendants
Vital Therapies, Inc., Terry Winters, and Michael V. Swanson for
allegedly misrepresenting material facts and/or misleading
investors about the interconnection between our three clinical
trials, the independent significance of each clinical trial, and
the potential effects of the failure of one of the clinical trials
on the others. The complaints are filed on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Vital Therapies stock between
April 17, 2014 through August 21, 2015, inclusive. The complaints
allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaints seek unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
and equitable/injunctive or other relief.

On February 1, 2016, putative shareholders and class members
Kaktrale Austin, Sumesh Kumar, and Nelson Than moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of choice of counsel.
Kaktrale Austin and Sumesh Kumar also moved to consolidate the
complaints into a single action. Sumesh Kumar and Nelson Than
withdrew their motions for appointment as lead plaintiff on
February 23, 2016, and March 3, 2016, respectively.

On May 2, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiff
Kaktrale Austin's motion for consolidation and appointing
plaintiff Kaktrale as lead plaintiff and his counsel as lead
counsel. The consolidated action is captioned In re Vital
Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-CV-2700 JLS (NLS).
The court also set a deadline of June 1, 2016 for lead plaintiff
to file an amended complaint and ordered Vital Therapies, Inc. and
Messrs. Winters and Swanson to respond to the amended complaint
within thirty days of its filing.

The Company said, "We intend to defend the securities lawsuit
vigorously. Based on information available to us at present, we
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with
this action. We are expensing legal costs associated with
defending this litigation as the costs are incurred."

Vital Therapies is a biotherapeutic company focused on developing
a human hepatic cell-based treatment targeting acute forms of
liver failure.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Court Dismissed Two Merger Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that a court has
dismissed two class action lawsuits related to the Company's
merger agreement with SanDisk Corp.

In November 2015, plaintiffs filed two putative class action
complaints in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, challenging the Agreement and Plan of
Merger the Company entered into with SanDisk on October 21, 2015
(the "Merger Agreement"). The complaints alleged, among other
things, that the members of the SanDisk board breached their
fiduciary duties to SanDisk's shareholders by agreeing to sell
SanDisk for inadequate consideration, failing to properly value
SanDisk, agreeing to inappropriate deal protection provisions that
may inhibit other bidders from coming forward with a superior
offer, not protecting against alleged conflicts of interest
resulting from the SanDisk directors' own interrelationships or
connection with the proposed transaction, and failing to disclose
all material information regarding the proposed transaction.  The
complaints also alleged that the Company aided and abetted the
SanDisk board members' breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiffs were seeking injunctive relief to prevent the Merger
from closing.  The plaintiffs were also seeking, among other
things, to recover costs and disbursement from the defendants,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  At the request of
the plaintiffs, the court ordered one of these matters dismissed
without prejudice on February 26, 2016, and the other on March 8,
2016.


XPO LOGISTICS: To Pay $235,000 in Plaintiff Counsel Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, that the
Company has agreed to pay fees and expenses of $235,000 to the
plaintiff's counsel.

On October 7, 2015, a purported stockholder of Con-way Inc. ("Con-
way") filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, captioned Abrams v. Espe, et al., C.A. No.
11585-VCN. The complaint named as defendants the members of the
board of directors of Con-way, XPO Logistics, Inc. ("XPO") and an
affiliate thereof, and Citigroup Inc., financial advisor to Con-
way, in connection with the acquisition of Con-way by XPO. The
complaint alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder
value in connection with the proposed transaction and failing to
disclose certain information in the Schedule 14D-9 of Con-way
relating to the proposed acquisition. The lawsuit sought, among
other relief, a preliminary injunction, rescissory damages and
recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Stipulation and
Proposed Order requesting dismissal of the action, and further
noting its counsel's intent to submit an application for an award
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On February 24,
2016, the Delaware court granted the Order, retaining jurisdiction
solely for the purpose of determining plaintiff's counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

Plaintiff's counsel had expressed an intention to petition the
Court of Chancery for fees and reimbursement of expenses relating
to the supplemental disclosures made by Con-way in the amendment
to Schedule 14D-9 filed on October 22, 2015. XPO has agreed to pay
fees and expenses of $235,000 to the plaintiff's counsel no less
than 30 days after the filing of this Form 8-K, and plaintiff's
counsel has agreed not make any application to the court for
additional attorneys' fees and expenses. This fee has not been in
any way approved or ruled upon by the Court of Chancery. Payment
by XPO of the foregoing fees and expenses will fully and finally
resolve this litigation.


WAYFAIR INC: "Dingee" Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------
In the case, Dingee v. Wayfair Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
06941), Judge Denise L Cote entered an Opinion and Order dated May
24, 2016, granting Defendants' February 25 motion to dismiss, with
prejudice.  Accordingly, the case is closed.

Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on September 2, 2015,
a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Dingee v. Wayfair Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06941) by an
individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, (or collectively, the "Dingee
Plaintiffs"), under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
related to a drop in stock price that had followed a report issued
by Citron Research. On September 3, 2015 a second putative class
action complaint was filed, asserting nearly identical claims
(Jenkins v. Wayfair Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06985).

On November 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the Dingee action moved to
consolidate the two lawsuits, and to designate himself as lead
plaintiff in the class action and his attorney as lead counsel for
the class. On November 3, 2015 plaintiff in the Jenkins action
voluntarily dismissed his complaint. As a result, only the Dingee
action remains pending. On November 13, 2015, the Court appointed
Dingee as lead plaintiff.

On January 11, 2016, Dingee filed an amended complaint along with
a second named plaintiff, Michael Lamp. The Dingee Plaintiff's
complaint seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified
amount, and attorney's fees and costs.

"We have moved to dismiss the case; briefing on the motion to
dismiss was completed on April 1, 2016 and the parties are
awaiting a decision. The Company believes a loss is not probable
and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously," the Company said.


WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Carson" Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action complaint was filed on February 2, 2016, against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Carson, et al., v. Wayfair Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00716) by two individuals on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals (collectively, the
"Carson Plaintiffs"). The complaint alleges that Wayfair engaged
in a deceptive marketing campaign in which the Company advertised
certain "original" or "regular" retail prices, which the Carson
Plaintiffs allege were false. The Carson Plaintiffs' complaint
seeks injunctive relief, attorney's fees, punitive damages and
damages. The Company believes a loss is not probable and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


WESTLAKE FINANCIAL: Settles Robocall Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports that did you get an auto
loan through Westlake Financial Services, and get a robocall on
your cellphone in 2012 or 2013? The lawsuit says that violates the
law.  The settlement could put $150 back in your pocket.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces ERISA Class Action in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a new
proposed class action accuses Weyerhaeuser Co., one of the largest
forest products companies in the world, of illegally terminating
retirees' vested lifetime health-care benefits ( Kepner v.
Weyerhaeuser Co. , D. Or., No. 6:16-cv-01040, complaint filed
6/8/16 ).

Weyerhaeuser in January 2015 unilaterally terminated its
contributions to the retirees' health plan in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to a complaint
filed June 8 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon.  The retirees seek reinstatement of their benefits and
$7.8 million in damages allegedly suffered after the company
stopped making contributions to the plan.

James Kepner and three other retirees, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, allege that they were recruited and
retained by Weyerhaeuser as salaried employees based in part on
the company's benefits package, which included lifetime health-
care benefits for retirees.

The proposed class includes retirees and their eligible spouses
whose rights to health-care benefits -- including coverage,
contributions, reimbursement, or premium coverage -- had been
affected by terminations, reductions or changes since December
2010.

The class could include between 4,000 and 5,000 individuals, the
complaint says.

Weyerhaeuser's Promise

In 1979, Weyerhaeuser distributed a summary plan description to
its salaried employees informing them of the nature and scope of
their benefits package, the complaint alleges.  Accordingly, the
SPD explained that the employees had the right to continue health-
care benefits after retirement if they elected to make a small
monthly contribution.

According to the complaint, the company in 1990 included a
reservation-of-rights clause, which allowed it to modify or amend
the retiree contributions or terminate and substitute the retiree
plan in the future.  Later, the company started making changes to
the benefits and ultimately terminated the company's contributions
altogether in 2015, the complaint says.

The class alleges that Weyerhaeuser reiterated through the years
its promise of lifetime health-care benefits as part of the
company's compensation package.

They also allege that despite multiple requests to the company to
disclose the 1979 plan documents, the company has refused to do
so.  This refusal is an attempt to "obfuscate" its promise to
retirees for lifetime benefits and an "effort to misinform" them,
the complaint says.

The class also seeks a declaration that they are entitled to
lifetime benefits and that any plan amendment to reduce or
terminate the benefits is null and void.

A spokesman for Weyerhaeuser told Bloomberg BNA June 10 that as a
matter of policy the company doesn't comment on pending
litigation,

Haglund Kelley LLP represents the retirees.


WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------
Hon. John A. Kronstadt entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Suri Payala v. Wipro Technologies, Inc., et al., Case 2:15-cv-
04063-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), taking the Plaintiff's motion for Class
Certification under submission.

A hearing on the Motion for Class Certification was held and
counsel addressed the issues raised by the Court regarding
Plaintiff's Motion.

The "Status Conference Re Trial Readiness & Scheduling" was not
held. The Court will determine what date(s), if any, need to be
amended after the final ruling is issued.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=roAdN8as

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Meer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settlement Conference Held in "Reyes"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Settlement conferences in the case, REYES v. ZION FIRST NATIONAL
BANK et al, Case No. 2:10-cv-00345 (E.D. Pa.), were conducted
before Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice on June 9 and 10, 2016.

Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the class action case,
Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et. al., which was brought in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in early 2010. This case relates to our banking
relationships with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful
telemarketing practices. The plaintiff is seeking a trebled
monetary award under the federal RICO Act. In the third quarter of
2013, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the Reyes case. The plaintiff appealed the
District Court decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In
the third quarter of 2015, the Third Circuit vacated the District
Court's decision denying class certification and remanded the
matter to the District Court with instructions to reconsider the
class certification determination in light of particular standards
articulated by the Third Circuit in its opinion. A class
certification hearing was scheduled for late May 2016. Following
the Third Circuit's decision, the parties participated in a number
of mediation sessions, which could result in a settlement. Any
such settlement would be subject to court approval. There can be
no assurance, however, that the parties will be able to settle
this matter.

Zions Bancorporation is a financial holding company headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah, and with its subsidiaries, provides a
full range of banking and related services. Following the close of
business on December 31, 2015, the Company completed the merger of
its subsidiary banks and other subsidiaries into a single bank,
ZB, N.A.


* Education Dep't Proposes New Rules Following College Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer C. Kerr, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the Obama administration is trying to make it easier for students
who have been misled or defrauded by their colleges to have their
loans forgiven.

The Education Department says a rule proposed on June 13 would lay
out a clear relief process for borrowers who believe they were
lied to about job prospects after college or otherwise deceived in
order to enroll in the school.  It also aims to hold schools
accused of fraud or at financial risk more accountable by
requiring them to notify prospective and enrolled students, as
well as set aside money that could help cover future claims
against the school.

The proposal follows the collapse last year of Corinthian
Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college companies.

"A college degree remains one of the best investments anyone can
make in his or her future," Education Secretary John B. King Jr.
said on a call with reporters.  "But that's only true if it's a
meaningful degree that helps you land a better job, not if it's a
worthless piece of paper that's an artifact of deception rather
than proof of accomplishment."

Undersecretary Ted Mitchell said the new regulations, expected to
take effect in July 2017, "would replace a complicated uneven and
burdensome standard that varies by state with a new robust federal
standard that will allow easy use by students."

The proposal would streamline debt relief for groups of students
if they all experienced the same misconduct by a school, such as
instances of wide misrepresentation -- meaning they all wouldn't
have to file individual applications for loan forgiveness.  The
new provisions also would bar colleges from forbidding students
from class-action lawsuits as part of enrollment agreements,
something Corinthian had done.

The Debt Collective, a New York-based group that has lobbied to
have the student loans of Corinthian students canceled, was
cautious in its response.

"What the department released [June 13] amounts to little more
than a loose statement of intention to do right by student debtors
after decades of collaboration with corrupt for-profits,"
spokeswoman Laura Hanna said in a statement.

The group is concerned the education secretary would have too much
power in deciding relief to groups of borrowers.

A whistleblower raised concerns about Corinthian in early 2011,
alleging that employees of the for-profit chain fabricated
employers to make it appear as though unemployed graduates had
secured good jobs in their careers of study.  California's
attorney general filed a lawsuit in 2013, alleging rampant lies to
students about job placement.  Corinthian filed for bankruptcy
protection last year, closing schools and leaving thousands of
students with hefty debt and frustrated their efforts to earn
degrees.

The Education Department continues to vet thousands of requests
from Corinthian students for relief from their federal loans. So
far, it has erased the debt for more than 8,800 former Corinthian
students, totaling more than $132 million.  But that's only a
small fraction of the estimated $3.6 billion in federal loans
given to Corinthian students.


* High Court Rulings to Impact ERISA, Securities Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the ability of retirement plan participants and institutional
investors to pursue ERISA and securities class-action lawsuits
could be significantly altered, following two Supreme Court
actions that have sent both groups back to the circuit courts to
make their respective cases.

For plan participants, the high court's decision in May in Spokeo
Inc. vs. Robins raised the bar for such lawsuits by requiring
greater proof of harm to even get a day in court.

For institutional investors, the Supreme Court's eleventh-hour
decision to not take up a case addressing the timeliness of
securities class actions left the issue up to deeply divided
circuit courts and has investors anxious.  "It is an enormously
significant issue," said Chris Supple, deputy executive director
and general counsel for the $60 billion Massachusetts Pension
Reserves Investment Management Board, Boston, who co-chairs the
National Association of Public Pension Attorneys' securities
litigation committee.  "And there's a tremendous amount of
investor capital at stake in these cases."

In Spokeo, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion for
the 6-2 decision that the ""irreducible constitutional minimum' of
standing consists of three elements. . . . The plaintiff must have
(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to
be redressed by a favorable judicial decision."

To lawyers defending plan sponsors in cases stemming from alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the
decision raises the bar for plan participants to pursue such
claims, although the question of actual harm will have to be
decided case by case.

"Spokeo will bolster the argument by the defense bar that for an
ERISA claim to survive, harm must actually exist or there must be
plausible evidence of a risk of real harm.  That is going
complicate the pleading ability of the plaintiffs' bar to allege a
claim under ERISA where they can't show that," said Nancy Ross, a
Chicago-based Mayer Brown partner.  She thinks the decision will
cast doubt particularly on claims involving plan amendments that
did not yet result in harm, claims over the funding of defined
benefit plans, or those seeking statutory penalties for failure to
provide plan documents in a timely fashion.

The Pension Rights Center in Washington, in its amicus brief,
warned that the narrower interpretation "could affect the
retirement income security of millions of employees."

The potential sea change the ruling represents became apparent
just one week later, when the court cited its Spokeo decision as
it gave a class of Verizon Communications Inc. retirees another
chance to challenge a pension buyout annuity deal by vacating a
lower court decision and ordering the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in New Orleans to reconsider it in light of Spokeo.  Some
ERISA defense lawyers, who worry that vacating the decision could
discourage other employers from considering annuity buyouts, are
braced for challenges.

While many court observers see Spokeo as making it tougher for
participants to sue, Karen Handorf, a Washington-based partner at
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, which represented the
participants in their Supreme Court petition, saw the order to
vacate as a green light to bring such suits. "It reaffirms that
participants in plans don't have to wait for actual losses" before
suing plan fiduciaries, Ms. Handorf said.

In the second case, institutional investors were counting on the
Supreme Court to weigh in on two key questions regarding the
timeliness of securities litigation: how much time investors have
to sue for damages and whether they have to go it alone before the
class-action opt-out deadline is up.

But a last-minute settlement in the case brought by the $23.8
billion Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System, Jackson,
against IndyMac MBS Inc. challenging the time limits for investors
to join or opt out of class-action lawsuits, prompted the court to
remove the case shortly before scheduled arguments.

That leaves the timing question to lower courts, which have been
split.  Investors have been relying on an even older Supreme Court
decision.  In 1974, the court ruled in American Pipe and
Construction Co. et al. vs. State of Utah et al. that the filing
of a class-action lawsuit suspends -- or tolls -- the running of a
filing deadline for all class members.  That works for situations
where there are clear statutes of limitations, but cases involving
securities purchases raise another legal concept, statute of
repose.

"Before IndyMac, everybody understood that everything was tolled.
Once the class action was filed, all the institutional investors
knew they could wait and see how the class action was resolved,
and then decide whether to take individual action or not," said
Javier Bleichmar -- jbleichmar@bfalaw.com -- a partner in the
New York law firm Bleichmar, Fonti & Auld LLP, which represents
institutional investors in securities litigation.

A big deal

The tolling question is such a big deal that 55 public pension
funds and other institutional investors representing $1.5 trillion
of assets and the National Conference on Public Employee
Retirement Systems joined in filing an amicus brief May 31 asking
the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule as soon as possible
in a case that would break a 2-2 circuit split, North Sound
Capital LLC et al. vs. Merck & Co. Inc. et al.  Without that
clarity, institutional investors could be forced to protect their
interests by filing individual claims if there is a risk that a
class certification will be denied or decertified.

"It takes away a significant advantage of the class action if you
have to pay attention to every individual case.  It's exactly the
type of burden that the class action was designed to avoid -- both
for litigants and the courts.  Institutional investors rely on the
class action and as currently configured don't really have the
resources to do otherwise," said Mr. Supple of MassPRIM.

"We are trying to preserve a set of securities laws that protect
investors," said Hank Kim, executive director and general counsel
of NCPERS, whose 500 public pension fund members have $2 trillion
in assets.  He and many others expect that the tolling question
ultimately will wind up back at the Supreme Court.

Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- a partner with Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, who prepared the amicus brief,
thinks the high court will be interested after the 3rd Circuit
weighs in on North Sound.  The split among the circuits "just
causes a tremendous amount of burden and waste for shareholders.
The uncertainty of what a circuit may do has caused investors to
be prudent and file protective claims," he said.

That additional burden on courts also could capture the Supreme
Court's attention, noted Mr. Bleichmar.  "Judicial efficiency is a
big issue for the Supreme Court, and that cuts across party
lines."


* Therium Mulls Class Action Against Closet Indexers in Europe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pearce, writing for Financial News, reports that the
litigation funder backing the high-profile shareholder action
against Lloyds Banking Group is looking to ratchet up the pressure
on closet indexers in Europe, having started preliminary research
on the issue with an eye on bankrolling a class action in the UK
later this year.

Therium Capital Management is investigating the viability of
funding legal action on behalf of pension funds over whether they
have been misled into investing in funds that charge fees in line
with active management but in reality mimic passive benchmarks.

The firm was launched in 2009 by three lawyers and has invested in
a range of cases from intellectual property disputes to lawsuits
in the energy sector.

Over the past 18 months a host of national regulators in Europe
have announced investigations into the extent of closet indexing
in their home markets, while a class action was unsuccessfully
attempted in Sweden.  However, the London-based firm's decision to
start exploratory work into the issue is a clear indication it
believes there could be solid ground for seeking legal redress in
the UK.

Hanif Virji, who leads Therium AHV Financial Markets, which was
launched in November 2015 to focus exclusively on finance
ligation, told Financial News that he has begun collecting data on
24 of the biggest actively managed investment funds in the UK and
Europe to ascertain how active they are.

His work is based on the methodology developed and widely cited by
Antti Petajisto, formerly an academic at Yale and now a quant
portfolio manager at BlackRock, and Martijn Cremers, a professor
of finance at the University of Notre Dame.

Mr. Virji acknowledged that it is not a "black-and-white issue"
but said that out of the full data set so far collected on seven
funds, three appear to be closet indexers.

"There's nothing like getting your hands totally dirty to
understand the issue," he said.  "If you are on the wrong side of
[our research], you are in our cross hairs."

If Therium feels the preliminary research shows there is a reason
for further investigation, it will broaden out its study to a
larger spread of funds.  If this also offers strong evidence that
a case could be launched then Therium will enlist a law firm to
apply for a group litigation order and file particulars of claim
at the High Court, detailing the issue and the extent of the
potential damage.  At this point, pension funds which believe they
have wrongly invested in closet indexing funds will be able to
enlist for the class action.

In February, the European Securities and Markets Authority
reported that up to 15% of active equity funds it had investigated
in Europe were in closet indexing territory.

In Sweden, a class action on behalf of 3,000 investors against
Swedbank Robur for alleged closet indexing was last year dismissed
by the Swedish consumer complaints board on the grounds that the
case required oral evidence from witnesses, which was beyond the
scope of the organization's power.

Therium is known for funding the shareholder action against Lloyds
Banking Group over losses sustained following its ill-fated
takeover of HBOS in 2008.  Lloyds was later bailed out by the
government.

Neil Purslow, co-founder and chief investment officer of Therium,
said the firm has generated private equity-style returns for its
investors since 2009.  It raised $300 million from investors in
2015.  He added: "[Closet indexing] is a huge wrongdoing.  You
can't just track the market accidentally -- someone is sat there
doing it."



                            *********

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  * * *