CAR_Public/160623.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 125




                            Headlines


A123 SYSTEMS: Dempsey Fails in Bid to Revive Securities Suit
ADIR INTERNATIONAL: Court Stays Echavarria Suit
ADJUSTABLE CLAMP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Has Until Aug. 3 to Respond to "Vazquez" Suit
AIRBNB: Monroe County Mulls Rental Tax Class Action

ALBANY, NY: Residents Call for Town to Address Water Crisis
ALICIA'S MEXICAN: Medina Wage & Hour Suit Won't Proceed as Class
ART.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Knapp"
AMERICAN BAR: Dismissal of Suit Over Admission Test Affirmed
AUSTRALIA: Failed Equine Flu Class Action Hits Maurice Blackburn

BANK OF NEW YORK: 4 Class Suits Filed Over Depositary Receipts
BELLAIRE FAMILY: Class Certification Sought in "Arellano" Suit
BERNARD FREUNDEL: Sanford Appointed as Interim Class Counsel
BET365: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over "Free Bet" Offer
BLU SUSHI: Settlement Agreement in "Mitchell" Suit Approved

CALIFORNIA: Restrictions on Immigrant Detainee Phone Use Eased
CANADA: Disabled Veterans Head Back to Court in Benefits Case
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Rules on Evidentiary Requirement Issue
CARFAX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Subscription Pricing Model
CARIS LIFE: Must Pay $16MM Damages to Stock Option Holders

CBL & ASSOCIATES: Sued in Ten. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
CBS RADIO: Class Certification Sought in "Bonin" Suit
CC&D LLC: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid OT Wages
CELAPURE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Junk Fax Transmissions
CELLCEUTIX CORP: Court Junks "Zagami" Suit

CHIPOTLE: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in Denver
CORMEDIX INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss on July 18
CPI CARD: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New York
CVS HEALTH: Class Certification Bid in "Bordenet" Suit Denied
CUYAHOGA, OH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Butterfield" Suit Says

DELAWARE: Ali Seeks Class Status of Suit v. Dept. of Corrections
DUPONT: PFOA Class Action Litigation Ongoing in Ohio
ERIN ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
FANDUEL: Mulls Merger with Draftkings Amid Class Actions
FEDEX GROUND: Court Awards $37.2MM Attorney's Fees in "Alexander"

FIRST RESOLUTION: Ohio Remands "Taylor" to Trial Court
FLOWERS FOODS: Certification of Distributors Class Sought
FLOWERS FOODS: "Rosinbaum" Transferred to E.D.N.C.
FOUR M FRANCHISING: "Walder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
FRESNO, CA: Possible Source of Tainted Tap Water Identified

GALENA BIOPHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Today
GEORGIA: Dismissal of "McConnell" Suit v. Labor Dept Affirmed
GRIMES COUNTY, TX: Wallace Pack Unit Inmates' Class Action OK'd
GROUP O: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Creal"
GS ENGINEERING: Korean Investors File Class Action

HALLIBURTON CO: New Plaintiffs Can't Join Perchlorate Suit
HORNBLOWER NEW YORK: Class Action Over Withheld Tips Can Proceed
INT'L BUSINESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Vacation Pay Case
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Seeks Dismissal of Customer Suit in Conn.
JBG EDUCATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Travel Expenses

JPMORGAN CHASE: "Nypl" Case Consolidated with Forex Case
JPMORGAN CHASE: Brown Appeals Order Approving $150-Mil. Accord
LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employee Plan Premiums
LIBERTY POWER: BLT Plaintiffs May File 2nd Amended Complaint
LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE: Chambers Class Certification Bid Nixed

LIFELOCK INC: Final Approval Hearing Today on Ebarle Settlement
LIFELOCK INC: Bid to Dismiss "Avila" Case Under Advisement
LIFELOCK INC: Oral Argument Not Yet Set by Ninth Circuit
LONG BEACH, CA: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Marquez" Suit Says
LYFT INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide 60 Days Termination Notice

MARKETSOURCE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MASSAGE ENVY: Faces New Class Action Over Prepaid Massages
MCCLINTON ENERGY: Appeal to 5th Circuit Filed in "Dismuke" Suit
MCDONALD'S CORP: July 29 ADA Case Prelim. Status Conference Set
MDL 2284: Court Enjoins Rosses' Michigan State Suit

MEDPARTNERS: $310MM Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court OK
MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Settlement Has Final Approval
NAVY FEDERAL: Aug. 12 Hearing on Renewed Settlement Approval Bid
NESCO SERVICE: Class Certification Bid in "St. John" Suit Denied
NETFLIX: Two Workers Mull Class Action Over Employment Status

NEW PRIME: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action in Calif.
NEW SEABURY: Membership Deadline Pushed Back Amid Class Action
NEW YORK: Assistant State AG Disputes Court Backlog Claims
OZ MINERALS: Settles Merger Class Action for $24 Million
PHARMACARE US: Spokeo Ruling Impacts Class Certification Decision

PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Over Proposed Merger
POLYCOM INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
PORSCHE CARS: Obtains Favorable Ruling on Authorization Motion
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: "Hsu" Case Still Pending in C.D. Calif.
QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Over Maple Oatmeal Claims

REAL TIME: Manrique Class Certification Terminated
RESOLUTE FOREST: Class Action at Preliminary Stage
RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Faces Class Action Over "This Land" Song
RICK'S FRONT DOOR: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Jail Call Fee Cut Imminent Amid Class Suit

RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Oct. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Mojica" Suit
SINGING RIVER: Court Stays Lowe's Claims vs KPMG
STATE FARM: Summary Judgment in Freedom Medical Case Affirmed
SYNGENTA: February Trial Set in Midwest Corn Farmers' Suit

TARGA RESOURCES: TRC-TRP Merger Case Dismissed
TEXAS: Green Seeks Class Certification of Suit v. Justice Dept
TOTAL CARD: Bid to Dismiss "Genova" Suit Granted
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fox News Join Drive to Obtain Deposition Access
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Minimum Wage

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Provide Termination Notice, Suit Says
UNITED COLLECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
UNITED ONLINE: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
UNITED STATES STEEL: Sued Over Benzene Products Exposure
UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid in "Smith" Suit Denied

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses "Fisher" Suit Over PACER Fees
US HEALTHWORKS: Illegally Uses Background Report, Suit Claims
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Former CEO Faces Probe Over Emissions Scandal
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: To Deliver Electric Cars Amid Emissions Suit
WEATHERBY INC: $500,000 Class Action Settlement in "Fiant" Okayed

WISH-I-AH SKILLED: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Licon" Affirmed
YALCIN INC: "Yanez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
YM KNIT: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ZAFGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bessler" Case Pending

* Chicago Business Leaders Balk at Burke's New Arbitration Rules
* Successful Securities Class Action Law Firms Picked Right Cases


                            *********


A123 SYSTEMS: Dempsey Fails in Bid to Revive Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain reinstated the judgment dismissing the
amended complaint and reclosed the case captioned RICHARD DEMPSEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DAVID P. VIEAU, et al., Defendants, No. 13 CV 6883-
LTS (S.D.N.Y.).

In the putative class action, Richard Dempsey alleged that the
defendants, executives of A123 Systems, Inc., violated the federal
securities laws by making material misstatements or omissions
relating to A123's production of electric car batteries for a car
manufacturer, Fisker Automotive, Inc.  Dempsey alleged that A123
mislead investors as to (1) the manufacture and testing of A123's
batteries, which were ultimately determined to be defective; and
(2) the financial health of Fisker and its related ability to
purchase and pay for A123's batteries.

On September 8, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, and
ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case.  On October 6, 2015,
Dempsey commenced the instant motion seeking relief from the
court's judgment to reopen the case, and leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint.

Judge Swain explained that plaintiffs are entitled to an
opportunity to move for leave to amend their complaint in an
attempt to cure the defects in the amended complaint, which was
dismissed by the court for failure to state a claim.  Thus, the
judge granted Dempsey's motion to modify the judgment to the
extent of permitting Dempsey's instant motion for leave to amend
the amended complaint.

Judge Swain, however, found that the proposed second amended
complaint does not cure any of the pleading defects previously
identified by the court.  Dempsey's motion for leave to amend was
denied on the basis of futility.

A full-text copy of Judge Swain's June 15, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/PvsPF4 from Leagle.com.

Huang YiFeng, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Ronen Sarraf --
ronen@sarrafgentile.com -- Sarraf Gentile, LLP & David Avi
Rosenfeld -- drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Hormuz Irani, Lead Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Corey D. Holzer --
cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- pro hac vice, Holzer & Holzer, LLC,
Michael Gerard Capeci -- mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Richard A. Dempsey, Plaintiff, represented by Corey D. Holzer, pro
hac vice, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, Michael Gerard Capeci, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Stanley Levin, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Jeffrey Shuhaiber, Movant, represented by Gregory Mark Nespole --
nespole@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Simon Gima, Movant, represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh --
glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Frank Rubin, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller, Kahn Swick
& Foti, LLC.

David P. Vieau, David J. Prystash, Jason M. Forcier, John R.
Granara III, Defendants, represented by James Ellis Brandt --
james.brandt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Jeff G. Hammel --
jeff.hammel@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins.


ADIR INTERNATIONAL: Court Stays Echavarria Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Hon. Christina A. Snyder entered order in the lawsuit styled
MONICA ECHAVARRIA, the Plaintiff, v. ADIR INTERNATIONAL, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. CV15-9172-CAS(KSx) (C.D. Cal), removing the
Action from the Active List of Cases, Pursuant to a Stay in the
Action.

The Court has approved a stay in this matter on June 13, 2016.
The Court thus removes this action from its active caseload until
further application by the parties or Court order.

The Court directs counsel to file a joint report detailing the
status of the case within 60 days and every quarter thereafter
until the action has been reactivated on this Court's active
caseload or a stipulation for dismissal is filed. The Court
retains full jurisdiction over this action and this Order shall
not prejudice any party to this action. All dates in this action
are vacated and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and to
be Appointed Class Counsel is moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eyx6AOtT


ADJUSTABLE CLAMP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Rojas, and Jeremias Fabian, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Adjustable Clamp Company d/b/a Pony
Tools Incorporated, Case No. 1:16-cv-06044 (N.D. Ill., June 9,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide  60
days' notice of termination to employees.

Adjustable Clamp Company manufactures clamping products and clamp-
related tools for use in home building, woodworking, metalworking,
and heavy industrial projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
      224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 763-6880
      E-mail: info@caffarelli.com


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Has Until Aug. 3 to Respond to "Vazquez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned Christy Vazquez, Plaintiff, v. Advocate Health Care
Network, an Illinois Non-profit Corporation, et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05200 (N.D. Ill.), granting an Agreed
motion for extension of time to and including August 3, 2016, to
answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' class action complaint
and stay Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RCid9x3D


AIRBNB: Monroe County Mulls Rental Tax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Timothy O'Hara, writing for keysnews.com, reports that the Monroe
County Commission agreed on June 15 to go after the company that
operates the Internet transient rental booking site AirBnB.com for
hotel sales taxes and to make sure the company is following the
county's strict transient rental regulations.

The commission gave County Attorney Bob Shillinger authorization
to work with a private law firm and potentially other counties on
a class-action lawsuit against Airbnb.

Also, Mr. Shillinger has the authority to try and work out a
settlement agreement for the taxes and to set up rules to make
sure AirBnB and the homeowners that rent through the company's
website are following county regulations regarding transient
rentals.

A representative from AirBnB, Brian Bautista, attended the June 15
meeting to lobby the commission to approve a "voluntary (tax)
collection agreement" the company has proposed to various state
tax collector's offices across Florida, including the one in
Monroe County.

Mr. Batista said AirBnB is "committed to being a positive
partner," with Monroe County and would be willing to "work through
the county's concerns" and "solve the needs and concerns."

The agreement would require the group to pay lump sums of taxes
but not provide any occupancy information or what rentals are
actually legal.  The commission did not appear interested in the
agreement.  The lack of information, refusal to pay back taxes and
the potential to violate local transient rental laws has the tax
collector and the county attorney rejecting the agreement.

On June 15, Mr. Batista would not commit to have his company do
more to regulate people advertising properties on AirBnB to make
sure they are licensed and legal.

"They are circumventing what rules we have in place," County
Commissioner George Neugent said.

County Mayor Heather Carruthers told Mr. Bautista that the issues
in the Keys are much different from other parts of the state and
the country.  Monroe County has a moratorium on new transient
rental units, the county has limits on how many transient rentals
can occur because of hurricane evacuation timelines and the county
has strict requirements on the issuance of transient rental
licenses, Ms. Carruthers said.

This is not the first time Monroe County led a class action suit
against online travel companies.  A 2010 class action lawsuit
filed by 33 Florida counties against online travel booking sites
Priceline, Expedia and Travelocity, resulted in the companies
paying the counties $6.5 million to settle the case. Monroe County
received $1.9 million of that.


ALBANY, NY: Residents Call for Town to Address Water Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Denis Slattery, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
residents of an upstate town angry over state officials' haphazard
handling of their contaminated water crisis flooded Albany on June
15 seeking answers.

The fear that residents face and the anger over the response from
officials echo of the Flint, Mich. lead crisis.

Loreen Hackett and about two dozen of her neighbors from the tiny
hamlet of Hoosick Falls gathered outside the state Senate chamber
hoisting signs with numbers showing how much perfluorooctanoic
acid, PFOA, a chemical linked to cancer, is in their bodies.

They called on the Legislature to hold hearings.  They called for
a meeting with Gov. Cuomo.

Upstate residents use social media to spread water crisis
They pleaded for answers.

"We need federal and state hearings to figure out what went wrong
so that you, communities of New York and beyond, don't have to
endure the same thing we have had to," said Rob Allen, a Hoosick
Falls father of three who teaches music at a high school.

Residents of the Rensselaer County town began receiving their
blood test results from the state Health Department in the past
two weeks, months after they learned the chemical was in the water
supply,

PFOA, used in the production of nonstick kitchenware, has been
linked to elevated risk for numerous maladies, including several
forms of cancer.


ALICIA'S MEXICAN: Medina Wage & Hour Suit Won't Proceed as Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Melinda Harmon denied Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit styled MARTHA MEDINA, the Plaintiff,
v. ALICIA'S MEXICAN GRILLE INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
4:15-CV-1192 (S.D. Tex.).

The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any other aggrieved
employees have an interest in joining her lawsuit. This fact,
combined with the sparse evidence that other potential plaintiffs
even exist, makes certification inappropriate, Judge Harmon said.

Plaintiff filed this case pursuant to Sections 29 U.S.C. Sections
201-16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Medina filed her
Complaint "as a collective action, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated servers, waiters/waitresses, hostesses,
bartenders, and other tipped employees and those performing the
same or similar job duties at Alicia's who might opt-in this
lawsuit."

The Complaint says Plaintiff and other members of the Class: (1)
were required to participate in a mandatory tip pool, which was
extended to employees that do not regularly and customarily
receive tips; (2) had the cost of uniforms deducted from their
pay, thus reducing their pay below the statutory minimum wage; (3)
had impermissible withholdings from their tips for incorrectly
fulfilled orders; and (4) were required to work off-the-clock,
resulting in unpaid hours and artificially reducing hours below 40
hours per week.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0PZLAFP6


ART.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Knapp"
--------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES PRESCOTT KNAPP, Plaintiff, v. ART.COM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00768-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William H. Orrick granted in part and denied, in part, Art.com,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss and strike.

James Knapp brought a putative class action against Art.com,
accusing it of violating California's consumer protection laws by
conducting "perpetual sales" that deceive consumers into believing
that they are receiving significant bargains on Art.com's
merchandise, when in fact they are not.  Art.com moved to dismiss
or strike certain portions of Knapp's first amended complaint.

Judge Orrick dismissed with leave to amend Knapp's claims under
the unlawful prong of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) to
the extent that they are based on section 52(a).  The judge held
that Knapp has not stated a claim under the UCL's fraudulent
prong.

Judge Orrick denied Art.com's motion in all other respects.  Knapp
may file a second amended complaint within 20 days of the date of
the order.

A full-text copy of Judge Orrick's June 15, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/aaXsfP from Leagle.com.

James Prescott Knapp, Plaintiff, represented by Jason H. Kim --
jkim@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns, Kyle Geoffrey Bates -- kbates@schneiderwallace.com --
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Todd M. Schneider
-- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Aubry Wand, The Wand Law Firm.

Art.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Moe Keshavarzi --
mkesharvarzi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Andrew Alexander Kuljis -- akuljis@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & John Michael Landry --
jlandry@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.


AMERICAN BAR: Dismissal of Suit Over Admission Test Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANGELO BINNO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, No. 12-2263 (6th
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed
the judgment of the district court ruling granting the American
Bar Association (ABA)'s motion to dismiss.

Angelo Binno is a legally blind individual who applied for
admission to several law schools, unsuccessfully, and thereafter
filed an action against the American Bar Association (ABA), under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming that his lack
of success was due to a discriminatory admissions test "mandated"
by the ABA.  The admissions examination in question, utilized by
nearly all law schools in the United States, is the Law School
Admissions Test (LSAT).  Binno contended that the questions on the
LSAT have a discriminatory effect on the blind and visually
impaired because a quarter of those questions "require spatial
reasoning and visual diagramming for successful completion."  He
alleged that his poor performance on the LSAT has prevented him
from being admitted to accredited law schools, in violation of
Titles III and V of the ADA.

The district court granted the ABA's motion to dismiss, finding
that plaintiff Binno lacked standing to sue the ABA and,
alternatively, that his amended complaint failed to state a claim
for relief under either Title III or Title V of the ADA as a
matter of law.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Binno does not have
standing to sue the ABA because his injury was not caused by the
ABA and because it is unlikely that his injury would be redressed
by a favorable decision against the ABA.  The appellate court
further held that, even if Binno could establish standing, the
district court correctly dismissed his Title III and Title V
claims for failure to state claims for which relief may be
granted.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's June 16, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/L07afK from Leagle.com.

Jason Marc Turkish, NYMAN TURKISH PC, Southfield, Michigan,
Melissa M. Nyman, Rocklin, California, Richard H. Bernstein, THE
SAM BERNSTEIN LAW FIRM, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellant.

Anne E. Rea -- area@sidley.com -- Tacy F. Flint, John M. Skakun
III -- jskakun@sidley.com -- Steven J. Horowitz --
shorowitz@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for
Appellee.

Ann M. Sherman, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing,
Michigan, for Amicus Curiae.


AUSTRALIA: Failed Equine Flu Class Action Hits Maurice Blackburn
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reports that Maurice Blackburn has been left $11 million out of
pocket after abandoning its class action against the federal
government over the 2007 horse flu outbreak that brought the
racing industry to its knees.

The flunk of the case is also potentially damaging for Nationals
leader Barnaby Joyce, who could face a backlash from stud farmers
and horse racing industry participants in his rural New England
electorate.

A spokeswoman at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers confirmed the case was
settled in principle and would be discontinued, subject to the
pending approval of the Federal Court.

A trial for the matter on behalf of 587 group members,
predominantly from the horse racing industry, was due to begin on
June 6, nine years after the case was first brought, but was
halted after failed mediation attempts in May.

Maurice Blackburn had claimed the Commonwealth breached its duty
of care by failing to prevent the virus escaping from the Eastern
Creek Quarantine Station near Penrith in NSW, leading to the
infection of thousands of horses and six-month restrictions on the
movement of horses.

But the spokeswoman conceded the proposed settlement was made
without any admission of liability on the Commonwealth's part and
did not involve any compensation.

"We fought this case hard all the way and risked plenty to provide
access to justice and a chance at compensation for the people
badly affected by the equine influenza outbreak," the spokeswoman
said.  "Unfortunately, we were not successful in this instance,
despite our best efforts."

She said clients were protected from risk and the firm would cover
the millions of dollars in legal costs from the case.  It is
understood to amount to about $11 million.

A confidential note to clients from Maurice Blackburn, obtained by
The Australian Financial Review, said the Commonwealth had adopted
a "policy position not to pay any amount in settlement".

The firm said it had previously received advice from senior
barristers that the prospects of success were good, but the matter
could only be assessed after all expert evidence was filed.  Based
on the recent advice of trial counsel, the case had little
prospect of success.  The modest amount that could be recovered
would be entirely consumed by additional legal costs required for
a 12-week trial.

Mr. Joyce did not comment, nor did the Department of Agriculture
and Water Resources, except to say it had spent $263.81 million on
the equine influenza assistance package for individuals, business
and organizations between August 2007 and June 2009.

One of three lead plaintiffs, Gary Turkington, who owns the Wattle
Brae thoroughbred stud at Nobby in Queensland, said he lost $7
million in the outbreak and many others had lost their homes and
livelihoods.

"It is disappointing the Commonwealth has dug its heels in. On a
point of law they can win but morally the 587 of us have had our
businesses slaughtered by it," Mr. Turkington said.  "Why bother
spending $40 million on a royal commission to show it was a
disgrace and then no one is compensated?"

A royal commission into the affair in 2008 by former High Court
judge Ian Callinan found the outbreak occurred because quarantine
and biosecurity authorities at the Eastern Creek Quarantine
Station were "inefficient, underfunded and lacking diligence".

Mr. Turkington said he hoped whoever formed government after the
election would provide assistance for people in exceptional
circumstances to rebuild their businesses.

"Politicians won't make promises now," he said.  "But there will
be a backlash if nothing happens after the election."


BANK OF NEW YORK: 4 Class Suits Filed Over Depositary Receipts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that
between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims
relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting
dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its
role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The primary
claims are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The
lawsuits are all pending in federal court in the Southern District
of New York and are all in their early stages.


BELLAIRE FAMILY: Class Certification Sought in "Arellano" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned Gloria Lydia
Arellano on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Vladimnir Tabakman, DDS, PC d/b/a Bellaire
Family Orthodontics, Case No. 4:16-cv-00820 (S.D. Tex.), asks the
Court for class certification and expedited discovery.

The Class includes all other similarly situated employees of
Defendant. The similarly situated employees who may join this
action as opt-in plaintiffs are all current and former non-exempt
employees of Defendant who held the title "Administrative
Assistant" and who worked for Defendant during the class period.
Furthermore these employees were not paid for all overtime hours
worked at one and one-half times their regular rates and now seek
payment for such overtime wages.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests the Court to require the
Defendant's representative to produce under oath and under penalty
of perjury, the names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth,
and Social Security numbers of all such members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WvivDe1B


BERNARD FREUNDEL: Sanford Appointed as Interim Class Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler, LLP on June 15 disclosed that when Rabbi Bernard
"Barry" Freundel, a nationally recognized authority in Jewish law,
and the longstanding rabbi of Georgetown Synagogue-Kesher Israel
Congregation was arrested in October 2014 on charges of voyeurism,
the news made national headlines and generated two proposed class
action suits.  On June 14, in a significant move forward, the D.C.
Superior Court issued an omnibus order establishing a series of
deadlines for vigorous prosecution of several proposed class
actions arising out of Mr. Freundel's voyeuristic and criminal
acts.  The order set dates for the filing of a consolidated class
action complaint, specifies deadlines for the close of fact and
expert witness discovery, and directs that any motion for class
certification be submitted on May 12, 2017, with a hearing on
class certification to be held on June 13, 2017.  In another
important move, the Court appointed Sanford Heisler, LLP as
interim class counsel.

The lawsuit arose from a shocking betrayal of trust by
Mr. Freundel.  Early in 2015, Mr. Freundel plead guilty, in a
criminal proceeding before the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, to numerous counts of illicitly filming women as they
used the "mikvah" -- a Jewish ritual bath frequently used by
married Orthodox women as well as by women undergoing conversion
to Judaism.

The D. C. law firm of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C.
filed one of the original class actions.  "We are honored to be
working with Sanford Heisler to bring relief to the women who were
so terribly abused by Mr. Freundel's illegal conduct," said Ira
Sherman, founding partner of Chaikin Sherman, who is collaborating
with Sanford Heisler on this matter.  "It's a team effort we are
proud of and I am confident that together we can achieve some
measure of justice for the victims in this case."

After briefing and argument, Judge Brian F. Holeman of the D.C.
Superior Court appointed Sanford Heisler as lead interim counsel.
The Court stated that Sanford Heisler Chairman David Sanford's
"willingness to follow the Court's directions and his succinct
presentation on behalf of [Sanford Heisler] demonstrates that [the
firm] possesses the understanding, knowledge, experience, and
capability to perform the required work on behalf of the putative
class Plaintiffs."  The court also praised Mr. Sanford's candor,
experience, and foresight in proposing a definitive timeframe for
pre-certification discovery.  Judge Holeman emphasized that
Sanford Heisler has been recognized by various courts for
excellence in class action litigation and representation.  Based
on all of these factors, Judge Holeman concluded that Sanford
Heisler is "capable of exercising the managerial functions
required of lead interim class counsel."

In response to Judge Holeman's ruling, David Sanford said, "We are
gratified that Judge Holeman selected our firm to serve as interim
class counsel.  It is a serious responsibility and one we are
confident that we can handle successfully. Our firm has a long
history of representing women who have suffered gender
discrimination.  This suit is another variation on a sadly too-
familiar theme."

                  About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP -- http://www.sanfordheisler-- is a national
public interest class-action litigation law firm, which has
offices in Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco, and San
Diego.  Sanford Heisler specializes in employment discrimination,
wage and hour, qui tam, and other civil rights matters.  The firm
also represents select individual clients such as executives,
lawyers in employment disputes, and whistleblowers.  The firm has
recovered over $1 billion for its clients.

          About Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C.

The office of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. --
http://www.chaikinandsherman.com-- is a personal injury law firm
focused on seeking compensation for individuals who sustained
serious personal injury.


BET365: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over "Free Bet" Offer
---------------------------------------------------------
Simon Thomsen, writing for Business Insider Australia, reports
that Sydney firm Bannister Law is looking at launching a class
action against online betting agency Bet365 after a free bets
offer was declared misleading and deceptive.

The Federal Court fined the company $2.75 million following legal
action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over
Bet365's "$200 free bets to new customers" between March 2013 and
January 2014.

The court found last September that the promotion was misleading
and deceptive and involved false representations because the fine
print of the offer was not easily apparent.

To receive the free cash, new customers had to deposit $200 of
their own money and gamble it before receiving the $200 free bet.
They then had to gamble it all three times before withdrawing any
winnings, so at least $1200 was gambled before getting any money
back.

Justice Beach of the Federal Court concluded that Bet365's conduct
involved a significant element of recklessness.

"New customers who had not previously used such types of services
were drawn into this web of deception. But other customers who had
used such types of services before may have been similarly
enticed," Justice Beach concluded.

Bet365 issued a statement saying it regrets that "as a result of
an unintentional software error . . . it may not have adequately
brought to the attention of customers terms and conditions
associated with the promotion".

Charles Bannister, of Bannister Law, said the potential class
action would seek to recover damages for affected consumers in
relation to a promotion and advertising campaign during the period
March 13, 2013 to January 13, 2014.

He said initial estimates suggest more than 70,000 people
registered with Bet365 in the relevant period and could be part of
the claim.

His firm was opening registrations for the class action on
June 16.


BLU SUSHI: Settlement Agreement in "Mitchell" Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carol Mirando entered an order in the class action
lawsuit captioned CHRISTA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLU SUSHI DOWNTOWN
LLC, ERIC MAWBY and EMRAH SEVINCH, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
731-FtM-CM (M.D. Fla.), granting an Amended Joint Motion for
Approval of Parties' Settlement Agreement and Dismissal with
Prejudice, and approving an Amended Settlement Agreement and
Release as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute.

The parties have clarified that Plaintiffs will receive
independent consideration in the amount of $500.00 each in
exchange for the general release.

Because the settlement as to the only two plaintiffs in this
action provides full and final relief to the plaintiffs, the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Collective Action and Facilitate
Notice to Potential Class Members with Incorporated Memorandum of
Law is denied as moot. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing
the case with prejudice, terminate all deadlines and motions, and
close the file.

The Plaintiffs filed this complaint alleging that Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum
wages and overtime benefits.

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


CALIFORNIA: Restrictions on Immigrant Detainee Phone Use Eased
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Laughland, writing for The Guardian, reports that thousands
of immigrants detained in facilities in northern California will
enjoy improved access to legal counsel, following a major class
action settlement that lawyers hope will set a nationwide
precedent.

The settlement will ensure detainees at four centers are permitted
freer access to telephones in order to contact attorneys
throughout their removal proceedings, a right they claimed was
routinely denied due to unconstitutional restrictions that
violated Immigration and Customs Enforcement's own guidelines.

Plaintiffs argued that officials at the West County detention
facility, the Yuba County jail, Rio Cosumnes correctional center
and Mesa Verde detention facility, employed a number of policies,
including prohibitively expensive tariffs and automatically timed
hangups, which in effect barred many inmates from accessing
facility phones.  They also highlighted that phones automatically
cut off if they rang through to voicemail or if they connected to
an automated system, and that detainees could not receive incoming
calls.

The lawsuit added that some inmates were only allowed to make
phone calls during a "free time" window, often as short as two
hours a day, when allowed out of their cells, and claimed that
many telephones were located in common areas meaning little
privacy during sensitive legal conversations.

IP, one of the lead plaintiffs who requested he not be identified,
spoke to the Guardian and claimed he saw many men at the Rio
Cosumnes facility who might have qualified for prosecutorial
discretion instead opting to depart the US, as they could not
contact an attorney to represent them.

"It was nearly impossible to contact an attorney," he said, adding
that listed phone numbers to pro bono attorneys displayed in the
jail never connected.  "When people thought they had no access,
they would get really frustrated.  I saw it happen hundreds of
times, people just giving up.  There was one man, who had two
children and a pregnant wife in the US.  They needed money as she
wasn't working. So he ended up signing a deportation order so he
could be removed and try to send money back to her."

IP, who crossed the border from Mexico when he four years old, was
able to obtain a private attorney with help from his family. He
was released on bail last year and is awaiting a deportation
hearing later in the year.

A copy of the settlement, reviewed by the Guardian before it was
submitted to court, highlights a raft of reforms in the centres
including:

   -- Free calls to pre-registered pro bono attorneys and selected
government agencies from housing unit phones.

   -- Extending call cut-off times to up to one hour in certain
facilities.

   -- Erecting 40 phone booths in each facility to address
concerns over privacy and noise.

   -- Extending access to telephones throughout the day to
detainees in more restrictive incarceration.

   -- Developing a system to deliver telephone messages to
detainees.

The agreement, which is not an admission of wrongdoing, will be
phased in throughout the year.

Carl Takei, an attorney with the ACLU's national prison project
said he hoped the agreement would pave the way for reform across
the federal network of immigration prisons.

"The barriers to telephone access that we challenged in this case
are not unique.  Across the country Ice holds more than 30,000
immigrants each day in about 250 county jails, private prisons and
federally run facilities with similarly restrictive policies.
That's why we hope this settlement serves as a model for these
other facilities around the country.

A nationwide survey conducted by the National Immigrant Justice
Center in 2010 found that 78% of detained immigrants had been
prohibited from scheduling private calls with attorneys. According
to research published by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review
in 2015, 86% of detained immigrants go without legal counsel.

"This case is about fundamental fairness in the American legal
system.  The practices that we challenged were Ice blocking
detained immigrants' ability to communicate with the outside
world, and because of that blocking, most were detained while
fighting their deportation and not getting a fair shot in court.
This is unfair and fundamentally un-American," Mr. Takei added.


CANADA: Disabled Veterans Head Back to Court in Benefits Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed by a group of wounded military veterans who
are seeking better benefits from the federal government is heading
back to court.

More than a year ago, the two sides agreed to suspend court action
pending negotiations aimed at resolving issues surrounding
benefits and programs.  The agreement, which came to an end in
May, failed to result in a settlement between the parties.

In court documents filed by the veterans, the group expressed
unhappiness that the government is taking the position that the
B.C. Court of Appeal, which heard two days of arguments in
December 2014, now can rule on the government's appeal of a B.C.
Supreme Court ruling.

The government's position shows a "complete disregard" for
commitments the government made and the election platform of the
Liberal Party in support of veterans, say the documents.

"The procedure adopted by the appellant in this case of asking the
court to rule on the appeal on the basis of the December 2014
arguments is, to say the least, objectionable."

The documents say the appellants failed to disclose to the appeal
court that their legal position at the December hearing had been
repudiated within months by the former Conservative government.

In light of other developments, including Parliament's passage in
May 2015 of a resolution supporting the veterans, the plaintiffs
are calling for the appeal court to hear further arguments before
ruling on the case.

The case was heading back to the B.C. Court of Appeal in Vancouver
on June 17.

The class action lawsuit was filed in 2012 by six injured veterans
of the war in Afghanistan, who argued they deserved disability
payments comparable to what any other worker would receive through
workers' compensation.  The veterans were upset that lifelong
pensions were replaced by lump-sum payments as a result of the
2006 New Veterans Charter.

The government attempted to have the case thrown out of court, but
the B.C. Supreme Court declined to do so.  The government then
filed an appeal of the lower court ruling to the B.C. Court of
Appeal.

In an email, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr said Canadians
gave his government a mandate to repair the relationship with
veterans and he remains committed to do so.

The government delivered $5.6 billion in financial security for
veterans in this year's budget, including increasing benefits,
enhancing a disability award, opening 10 offices and hiring more
staff, he added.

"Veterans and stakeholder groups have made it clear they want
these changes done right and not rushed and I will work with all
veterans groups to accomplish this."


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Rules on Evidentiary Requirement Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
John F. Nucci, Esq. -- JFNucci@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The National
Law Review, report that in January of 2016, the law firm commented
on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the seminal case of
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green.  There, the Court
held that a prospective plaintiff must move for leave to commence
a class action for secondary market misrepresentation before the
three-year statute of limitations passes; but if leave is not
actually granted within that time period, the Court has
jurisdiction to allow leave and backdate it to within the three
year period.  Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
London had its first opportunity to consider the test for leave in
the aftermath of Green in Bradley v. Eastern Platinum Ltd.
("Bradley").  The court's decision there shed further light on the
evidence a plaintiff must proffer to "surpass the leave
threshold."

The prospective class plaintiffs in Bradley alleged that Eastern
Platinum Ltd. ("Eastern") committed a secondary market
misrepresentation through the release of its production results
for Q1 of 2011.  Eastern is platinum mining company, and the press
release outlined the operating results from the Crocodile River
Mine ("CRM") for the period ending on March 31, 2011.  The press
release indicated that "[t]he traditional slow start in January
combined with the introduction of revised support methods resulted
in a significant decrease in production for the quarter," but went
on to state that Eastern was "confident that the impact of this is
short term and that production will return to anticipated levels."
The day after the information was released, Eastern's stock price
fell from $1.30 to $1.10 on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

The plaintiffs filed notice of application for leave to commence a
class action on June 28, 2011, alleging that Eastern failed to
disclose a complete or partial shutdown of operations at the CRM
in Q1 of 2011, which resulted in a reduction in production.  The
application was amended on June 18, 2012, to further allege that
cement grout packs were introduced at the CRM in Q1 of 2011, which
take significantly longer to install than C-packs and thus
constituted an undisclosed material change due to its impact on
the decline of production.  Eastern denied this and presented
compelling evidence that C-packs, as opposed to cement grout
packs, were installed in Q1 of 2011, causing no slowdown in
productivity.

Section 138.8 of the Securities Act provides that no securities
class action may be commenced without leave of court.  Such leave
is granted only where the court is satisfied that (a) the action
is being brought in good faith, and (b) there is a reasonable
possibility that the action will be resolved at trial in favor of
the plaintiff.  The evidence required to show that reasonable
possibility was at issue here.

Eastern opposed the application, stating that the action was not
brought in good faith and, more importantly, that there was no
reasonably possibility that the action would be resolved in favor
of the prospective class.  The plaintiffs, meanwhile, argued that
they had submitted sufficient evidence to clear what they claimed
is the "low reasonable possibility of success at trial standard"
necessary for the grant of leave.

Citing extensively from Green, the court considered what standard
ought to be applied to the sufficiency of the evidence presented
at the application for leave level.  In his decision, Justice
Randy concluded that the motions judge must ensure that the leave
requirement is more than a "speed bump" in the litigation, and
that the plaintiff must show that there is a "reasonable or
realistic chance that the action will succeed."  In effect, this
means that a plaintiff must "offer both a plausible analysis of
the applicable legislative provisions and credible evidence in
support of the claim."  Upon hearing that evidence, the motion
judge must make a "robust, meaningful examination and critical
evaluation of the evidence (or the absence of evidence)."  Most
importantly, the court held that the standard "is not a low bar."
Because the plaintiffs' application was not supported by "the
overwhelming weight of the evidence that points to the opposite
conclusion," the application was dismissed.

The Bradley court's reasoned evaluation of the "reasonable or
realistic chance" standard is a good one.  In requiring the
prospective class plaintiffs to present more than just speculative
evidence, the court took steps to prevent the time and costs
associated with frivolous litigation.  The application for leave
process was put into place to prevent class action lawsuits
brought in bad faith.  The thinking behind the leave requirement
is thus best served where the court disposes of applications with
little chance of success at an early stage.  That was the case
here, where the court noted that there was "very compelling and
persuasive evidence" that cement grout packs were not introduced
in Q1 of 2011, and where plaintiffs did not present any firm
evidence showing that a complete or partial shutdown of CRM even
occurred at all.  Absent such evidence, plaintiffs claim was
reasonably dismissed before any more time or money could be spent
on a claim that was almost certain to fail.


CARFAX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Subscription Pricing Model
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachery Eanes, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports
that Used-vehicles record provider Carfax Inc. has been sued for
allegedly using an unfair pricing model for its subscription
services.

Alabama-based used-car dealer Turnbull Automotive filed the
lawsuit June 10 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, claiming
Centreville-based Carfax significantly increased monthly
installments on its subscriptions without justification.

"Carfax intends to increase prices when it enters into the
agreement, but deliberately and unfairly concealed this intent in
order to lock customers into a price Carfax has no intention of
honoring," Turnbull's lawsuit states.

Carfax said it does not comment on pending litigation.  It has not
filed a response in court yet.

A subscription to Carfax's VHS service gives customers access to
information on the repair history of used cars.  The lawsuit
claims that price increases to subscriptions are unfair and that
Carfax breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in the
amounts it increased contracts.

VHS agreements state that "Carfax may modify the prices for use of
the VHS" but Turnbull argues that Carfax did not use "discretion
to increase prices in good faith," as required by Virginia law.

The suit, which was filed on behalf of all individuals and
entities who have entered into contracts with Carfax, seeks more
than $5 million in damages.

Turnbull claims that Carfax lures customers into yearlong,
automatically renewed contracts and then increases prices without
justification.  Turnbull Automotive first subscribed to Carfax's
database in 2012 for $250 a month for six months.  In January
2013, the subscription was automatically renewed at an agreed upon
$499 per month, according to court documents.

Turnbull continued paying $499 a month until April 2014, when its
monthly payment was raised to $529. Carfax gave no explanation for
the increase in pricing when Turnbull complained to a company
representative, according to the complaint.

After Turnbull automatically renewed its contract in January 2015,
Carfax again raised prices in April to $569 a month. Turnbull
contested this increase.  Carfax threatened litigation over the
dispute and eventually turned Turnbull's account over to a
collection agency, to whom Turnbull payed the full amount.


CARIS LIFE: Must Pay $16MM Damages to Stock Option Holders
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Greene, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Caris Life
Sciences Inc. won't be able to escape a ruling requiring it to pay
over $16.2 million in damages to a class of stock option holders,
a majority of the Delaware Supreme Court ruled June 6 (CDX
Holdings Inc. (f/k/a Caris Life Sciences Inc.) v. Fox, 2016 BL
180519, Del., No. 526, 6/6/16 ).

In a rare divided decision, the state high court affirmed 4-1 a
July 2015 ruling in which the Delaware Chancery Court concluded
that the medical diagnostics company undervalued two spun-off
business units when it used a complex spin/merger to effectuate
the sale of its pathology unit.

Although the dissenting judge mounted a vigorous argument, the
majority deferred to the chancery court's factual findings.
Writing for the majority, Delaware Supreme Court Judge Randy
Holland said the lower court's findings were supported by the
record and were the product of sound reasoning.

The chancery court found that Caris breached a stock incentive
plan requiring the company to reimburse employees for stock
options cancelled in the merger, in the amount that the stocks'
fair market value exceeded the exercise price (13 CARE 1712,
7/31/15).

The lower court said Caris's board failed to make "Fair Market
Value" determinations it was supposed to make under the plan.

Dissenting Opinion

After the company's spin/merger transaction was completed, a Caris
employee option holder filed a class action claiming that the
share value attributed to the spin-offs wasn't made in good faith.

The chancery court found that Caris Chief Financial Officer Gerard
Martino made option-value determinations that undervalued two
spin-offs to minimize the tax liabilities of Chief Executive
Officer David Halbert, who owned 70.4 percent of the company.

In her dissent, Judge Karen Valihura said the chancery court's
decision should be reversed because it made no factual findings
supporting a conclusion that the board acted in bad faith.  She
specifically disagreed with the lower court's finding that the
board hadn't acted at all.

"If the trial court believed that the Board had not acted, then it
should have proceeded to analyze whether a majority of the Board
intentionally failed to act in the face of a known duty to act,"
she wrote.  "This typically requires an extraordinary set of
facts. Such facts, as to the Board's conduct, are not present
here."


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Sued in Ten. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
The Allan J. and Sherry R. Potts Living Trust, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc., Stephen D. Lebovitz, and Farzana K. Mitchell,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00195 (E.D. Ten., June 9, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a real estate investment
trust ("REIT"), and purports to be one of the largest and most
active owners and developers of malls and shopping centers in the
United States, owning, holding interests in, or managing more than
140 properties across 31 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
      Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
      BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
      40 Burton Hills Boulevard, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 248-2828
      Facsimile: (866) 816-4116
      E-mails: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
               Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


CBS RADIO: Class Certification Sought in "Bonin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled ELAINE BONIN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBS
RADIO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00674-CNC (E.D.
Wisc.), Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order:

     -- certifying the proposed class in this case,

     -- appointing the Plaintiff as class representative,

     -- appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel,

     -- staying this class certification motion until an amended
motion for class certification is filed,

     -- granting the parties relief from the automatic briefing
schedule pursuant to local rules, and the requirement that
Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this
motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CC&D LLC: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that two men
have filed a class-action suit against their former employer
alleging they were not paid overtime wages.

Victor Ortega and Carlos Posada filed a complaint on behalf of all
others similarly situated on May 23 in the Houston Division of the
Southern District of Texas against CC&D LLC, doing business as
Construction Concepts, and Joshua Weisman citing violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that between
January and April, they worked for more than 40 hours per workweek
but were not paid any overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek unpaid overtime
wages at the legal applicable rate, liquidated damages equal to
the unpaid wages, interest, all legal fees and any other relief as
this court deems just.  They are represented by Josef F. Buenker
and Vijay A. Pattisapu of Buenker Law Firm in Houston.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number
4:16-cv-01440


CELAPURE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Junk Fax Transmissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Florida
physician is suing two skin care companies claiming their
unsolicited fax campaign violates the 2005 Junk Fax Protection
Act.

Dr. Steven Arkin, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit on May 31 in U.S. District Court for the
Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida against Celapure
LLC, AQ Skin Solutions Inc. and 10 unnamed defendants.

According to the complaint, the defendants sent Dr. Arkin and
other class members unsolicited facsimile transmissions, expending
paper and ink and preventing fax machine use while messages are
received.

The plaintiff and other class members seek monetary damages of
$500 for each JFPA violation, interest and court costs.  They are
represented by Ryan M. Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- and
Ross M. Good -- RGood@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson + Wanca in
Rolling Meadows, Illinois.

U.S. District Court for the Tampa Division of the Middle District
of Florida Case number 8:16-cv-01352


CELLCEUTIX CORP: Court Junks "Zagami" Suit
------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GARY ZAGAMI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLCEUTIX
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 7194 (KPF)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the Gary Zagami's second amended complaint in
its entirety.

Judge Failla also denied Zagami's request for leave to replead.

A full-text copy of Judge Failla's June 8, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/e4ltBI from Leagle.com.

Zagami initiated the putative class action against Cellceutix
Corporation, Krishna Menon, and Leo Ehrlich, alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, following the
online posting of a scathing article by an admitted (and thus
admittedly self-interested) short seller.

Gary Zagami, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Jonathan Stern --
jstern@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Cellceutix Corporation, Leo Ehrlich, Krishna Menon, Defendants,
represented by Michael J Sullivan -- msullivan@egsllp.com -- pro
hac vice.


CHIPOTLE: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in Denver
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Markus, writing for Colorado Public Radio, Chipotle can add
yet another headache to the company's mounting troubles that
include cases of foodborne illness, federal investigations and
class action lawsuits.

Several shareholders have filed suit in Denver District Court,
claiming that Chipotle's executives and board of directors
conspired to unjustly award themselves, "hundreds of millions of
dollars through a corrupt stock incentive plan" at the expense of
investors, customers, and even the company itself.

The lawsuit is known as a shareholder derivative suit, meaning the
shareholders in this case are bringing the action on behalf of the
company itself against the executives.

According to the lawsuit, executives, acting on inside
information, sold tens of millions of dollars in shares in the
months leading up to outbreaks of foodborne illness at multiple
restaurants.  The Denver-based company's share price has
collapsed, down nearly 50 percent, since news broke late last year
of customers sickened by E. coli and norovirus contaminated food
from California to Massachusetts.

Steve Ells, the founder and co-CEO, sold $78.3 million in company
shares, "while the stock price was artificially inflated and
before the fraud was exposed," according to the lawsuit.

And, at the direction of top executives, the company repurchased
stock at an inflated price, costing, "$84 million more than the
stock was actually worth."

The lawsuit also alleges the company's executives failed to
protect customers from illness, and should have informed investors
of, "subpar food safety standards adhered to at various Chipotle
restaurants, so that the market price of the Company's common
stock would be based upon truthful and accurate information."

"Chipotle's image of a company that serves fresh, healthy, high-
quality and clean food may never revive," states the lawsuit filed
in early April in Denver and consolidated with a similar case in
May.

Representatives for Chipotle said they don't discuss pending legal
actions, but the company acknowledged the lawsuits in its most
recent public filing, adding, "the Company intends to defend these
cases vigorously."

Earlier this year Chipotle was served with a subpoena in a federal
criminal investigation centered on a norovirus outbreak at a Simi
Valley, California restaurant.  The company is also fighting a
separate federal class action shareholder lawsuit and several
civil claims from customers related to the illnesses.


CORMEDIX INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss on July 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cormedix Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that oral argument on a
motion to dismiss class action lawsuit is scheduled for July 18,
2016.

On July 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, captioned Li v. Cormedix Inc., et al., Case 3:15-cv-05264.
On September 4, 2015, two individuals, Shahm Martini and Paul
Chretien (the "Martini Group"), filed a Motion to Appoint Lead
Plaintiff. On that same date, another individual, Elaine Wood,
filed a competing Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff.  On September
18, 2015, the Martini Group withdrew its motion.  Thereafter, on
September 22, 2015, the Court appointed Elaine Wood as Lead
Plaintiff and, on October 2, 2015, appointed the Rosen Law Firm as
Lead Counsel.

On December 1, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
asserting claims that the Company and Steven Lefkowitz, Randy
Milby and Harry O'Grady (the "Cormedix Defendants") violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended
Complaint also names as defendants several unrelated entities that
allegedly were paid stock promoters.  Lead Plaintiff alleges
generally that the Cormedix Defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other
things, the competitive landscape for the Company's Neutrolin
product and the alleged use of stock promoters.  The Amended
Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.

On February 1, 2016, the Cormedix Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint
on the grounds, among others, that the Amended Complaint fails to
adequately allege: (1) material misstatements or omissions; (2)
scienter by any of the Cormedix Defendants; or (3) loss causation.
The parties are in the process of briefing that motion and oral
argument currently is scheduled for July 18, 2016.  The Company
believes that it has substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims in the class action and intends to continue vigorously
defending the case.


CPI CARD: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on June 15
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of CPI Card Group Inc. ("CPI" or the "Company") common
stock in connection with CPI's October 8, 2015 initial public
offering ("IPO"), including purchasers of the common stock in the
aftermarket.  This action was filed in the Southern District of
New York and is captioned Vance v. CPI Card Group Inc., No. 1:16-
cv-04531.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 15, 2016.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, David A.
Rosenfeld or Andrew L. Schwartz of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900
or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a
member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as
filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cpiinc/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges CPI, certain of its officers and directors,
the underwriters of CPI's IPO and certain selling shareholders
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  CPI is a leading
provider of payment card production and related services, offering
a single source for credit, debit and prepaid debit cards,
including "EMV" (Europay, MasterCard and Visa) chip,
personalization, instant issuance, fulfillment and mobile payment
services.  CPI markets its products and services to national and
regional banks, independent community banks, credit unions,
managers of prepaid programs, group service providers, and card
processors through field-based sales representatives in North
America, Western Europe, the United Kingdom and Canada.

The complaint alleges that at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst to
investors, the Company had shipped upwards of 100 million more
cards to its larger issuer customers than they were using in the
second quarter and first part of the third quarter of 2015,
resulting in the buildup of a massive backlog with those
customers, which was significantly reducing the demand for
additional card shipments in the fourth quarter of 2015 and fiscal
2016.  The adverse events and uncertainties associated with CPI's
largest customers' inventory levels was reasonably likely to have
a material impact on CPI's profitability and, therefore, was
required to be disclosed in the Registration Statement, but was
not.

The IPO was successful for the Company, the selling stockholders
and the underwriters who sold 17.25 million shares of CPI common
stock at $10 per share, raising $172.5 million in gross proceeds.
At the time of the filing of the complaint, CPI common stock was
trading at about $4.70 per share -- 53% less than the IPO price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
CPI common stock in or pursuant to CPI's October 8, 2015 IPO,
including purchasers of the common stock in the aftermarket (the
"Class").  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which
has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as one of the leading law
firms advising U.S. and international institutional investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the total amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for the last two years.
Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of
securities litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients.
Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded
investors, it also strives to implement corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide.


CVS HEALTH: Class Certification Bid in "Bordenet" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Amy J. St. Eve entered order in the lawsuit styled
Patricia Bordenet, the Plaintiff, v. CVS Health Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06103 (N.D. Ill.), denying Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, without prejudice, with leave to
refile.

The Defendant is on notice that this is a putative class action.
No appearance is required on the July 6, 2016 notice motion date,
according to a Docket Entry the Clerk of Court made on June 14,
2016.

An initial status hearing is set for July 27, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in
courtroom 1241.  Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's web page
at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and file a joint status report by July 21
as set forth in the Initial Status Conferences procedure. If the
defendant has not been served as of July 21, the Court will
continue the filing date for the joint status report until the
defendant is served. If the defendant files a motion to dismiss
prior to the filing of the joint status report, the Court will
continue the filing date for the joint status report until after
the Court rules on the pending motion.

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


CUYAHOGA, OH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Butterfield" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Butterfield, Tonya Dixon, Laurie Mickey, James Shannon, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Cuyahoga
County, Case No. CV-16-86444 (Ohio Comm. Pl., June 8, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Senior Account
Technicians overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Cuyahoga County is a county in the state of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin T. Roberts, Esq.
      THE ROBERTS LAW FIRM
      7622 Columbia Road
      Olmsted Falls, OH 44138
      Telephone: (440) 793-6255
      Facsimile: (440) 793-6256
      E-mail: ktr@kevinrobertslaw.com

         - and -

      Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
      Ellen M. Kramer, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
      700 West St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 781-7956
      Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
      E-mail: jcohen@crklaw.com
              emk@crklaw.com


DELAWARE: Ali Seeks Class Status of Suit v. Dept. of Corrections
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHAMSIDIN ALI, a/k/a/ Robert
Saunders, the Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et
al., the Defendants, Case 1:15-cv-01089-GMS (D. Del.), asks Court
to certify the following class:

     "all Muslim inmates imprisoned under Delaware Department of
Corrections (DDOC)."

According to the motion, the class members are identifiable using
records maintained in the ordinary course of business by DDOC.
There are more than 500 inmates imprisoned under Delaware
Department of Corrections that are Muslims.

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


DUPONT: PFOA Class Action Litigation Ongoing in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
Sharon Lerner, writing for The Intercept, reports that early this
month, a trial got underway in Ohio over the industrial chemical
PFOA (also known as C8).  The trial is the fourth of six
bellwether personal injury cases against DuPont stemming from a
massive class-action lawsuit.

Last July, DuPont spun off its "performance chemicals" division,
forming a new company known as Chemours, along with responsibility
for a large portion of its environmental liabilities, including
litigation over PFOA.  Then, in December, DuPont announced plans
to merge what was left of its company with another chemical giant,
Dow, and to divide the resulting corporate colossus into three
separate entities.

Together, the moves leave those struggling with DuPont's
environmental legacy with lots of questions.  So even as they're
litigating the case of David Freeman, an Ohio man who developed
testicular cancer after drinking water contaminated with PFOA,
attorneys have also been asking the court to compel DuPont to
demonstrate its ability to cover any awards to Freeman and other
plaintiffs.

In particular, they want to know "where the liabilities and
obligations of DuPont will fall" if the merger takes place.  In
their most recent legal brief in what is known as the Leach case,
submitted on May 11 to Federal Judge Edmund Sargus, lawyers
reiterated fears that the proposed Dow-DuPont merger "may be an
attempt to extinguish DuPont's liability" for claims related to
PFOA.  "DuPont reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in profits
from the manufacture of C-8 at its Washington Works plant and is
now taking the position that not one Leach class member is
entitled to compensation for injuries linked to their exposure to
C-8."

In its own brief, filed on May 4, DuPont said there had been no
decision yet as to how the emerging companies will handle the
costs in the PFOA cases and called the plaintiffs' request for
documents premature as well as "improper and intrusive."  DuPont's
lawyers also said that the plaintiffs' accusations that the
company was dodging its responsibilities were "merely
speculative."

Those awaiting their day in court said they were worried not just
that DuPont would try to duck out of its financial
responsibilities, but that the company might disappear entirely.
While DuPont has repeatedly promised that it will cover its
liabilities, plaintiffs' lawyers responded that those assurances
are meaningless "if DuPont fails to exist, which is likely after
the impending merger."

"I'm afraid DuPont will vanish," said Rob Bilott, the attorney who
oversees the class-action suit.


ERIN ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Erin Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 5, 2016, a
class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court purportedly on behalf of the Company and on behalf
of a putative class of persons who were stockholders as of the
date the Company (1) acquired the Allied Assets pursuant to the
Transfer Agreement and (2) issued shares to the PIC in a private
placement (collectively the "February 2014 Transactions").

The Company said, "The complaint alleges the February 2014
Transactions were unfair to the Company and purports to assert
derivative claims against (1) the seven individuals who served on
our Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions and (2)
our majority shareholder, CEHL. The complaint also purports to
assert a direct breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of the
putative class against the seven individuals who served on our
Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions on the grounds
that they purportedly caused the Company to disseminate a false
and misleading proxy statement in connection with the 2014
Transactions, and a direct claim for aiding and abetting against
Dr. Lawal. The plaintiff is seeking, on behalf of the Company and
the putative class, an undisclosed amount of compensatory damages.
The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom
the plaintiff seeks no recovery.  On March 3, 2016, all of the
defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss the
complaint."


FANDUEL: Mulls Merger with Draftkings Amid Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brown, writing for TheStreet, reports that the daily
fantasy industry is struggling amid increased scrutiny from state
governments.  Investors are losing confidence -- and money -- and
it looks like a missed deadline could cut the company off from a
huge source of revenue until 2017.

Given these troubles, these bitter rivals have proposed the
unthinkable.  Reports emerged earlier in the week that FanDuel and
DraftKings, the industry's two largest players, are in talks to
combine.  Why would these once-billion-dollar companies, which
reportedly hate each other, try to merge so quickly after
launching? It's a Hail Mary meant to save the firms.

The two companies have lost nearly half their value as their
operations have been halted in 11 states, including New York and
Texas.  Lawmakers are currently deliberating whether to allow the
sites to start operating again.  In February, Rupert Murdoch's
21st Century Fox (FOXA) revealed in a regulatory filing that it
had marked down the company's $160 million investment into
DraftKings by more than 60%.

Other investors can't be happy.  For DraftKings, they include
Madison Square Garden Co., and the Kraft Group, which owns the New
England Patriots.  FanDuel is backed by KKR & Co. and Time Warner
Inc., among others.  They both have also received funding from
venture firms including Shamrock Capital Advisors LLC, GGV Capital
and Atlas Venture LP as well as non-traditional investors like
Major League Baseball, National Hockey League LP, National
Basketball Association and Major League Soccer LLC.

Time is running out on these investments.  New York's legislature
was set to recess on June 16 and, if no decision is made as to the
legality of daily fantasy sports in the state before the session
ends, the companies would be forced to wait until at least January
2017 to hear their fates.  The proposed merger ups the public
pressure on lawmakers to take up the issue before recess.  The
move is aimed at getting approval for the companies to start
operation in key states again and not miss out on the bulk of the
NFL and MLB seasons and the start of the NBA season
-- all huge potential moneymakers, especially the NFL season,
which starts on September 8.

"The leak of the rumor was by no means accidental, in my opinion"
said Dan Wallach a gaming and sports law attorney at Becker &
Poliakoff.  "The leak appears to be designed to underscore the
seriousness of the situation and the position of these companies
that [regulators] need to get something done."

Some 12% of daily fantasy players live in New York, Mr. Wallach
explained, and this leak applies pressure on the legislature and
Attorney General Eric Schniederman to rule now on the legality of
the games.

If June 16 comes and goes without a decision in New York, the
outlook is bleak for daily fantasy.  FanDuel and DraftKings are
facing more than 100 class-action lawsuits and are under scrutiny
by a number of states for potentially violating online gaming
laws.  In addition to putting pressure on lawmakers, a merger
could be necessary to counteract regulatory costs, which could run
to $1 million per state or more, according to experts.

"The unicorn era is over.  This is a battle for survival,"
Mr. Wallach said.  "The burn rate is astounding.  These guys are
hemorrhaging money in legal fees and are on parallel tracks.  It
makes sense for them to combine both in the short term and long
term."


FEDEX GROUND: Court Awards $37.2MM Attorney's Fees in "Alexander"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEAN ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX
GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 05-cv-
00038-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen granted final approval
and the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs and
incentive awards.

Judge Chen awarded $37.2 million in fees which represents 16.5% of
the common fund.  The jduge also granted the incentive awards
requested by the plaintiffs -- i.e. $10,000 to each original named
plaintiff and $1,500 to plaintiff Marjorie Pontarolo.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's June 15, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/laytvh from Leagle.com.

Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines,
Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Joey
Rodriguez, Allan Ross, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron D.
Kaufmann -- akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- LEONARD CARDER LLP,
Beth A. Ross -- bross@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP,
David Philip Pogrel -- dpogrel@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder
LLP, Elizabeth R Gropman, Leonard Carder LLP & Elizabeth Cara
Morris, Leonard Carder, LLP.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chris
A. Hollinger -- chollinger@omm.comm -- O'Melveny & Meyers, Nicole
M. Friedenberg, Winston & Strawn LLP, Carolyn Kubota, Robert
Swerdlow -- rswerdlow@omm.com -- & Scott Michael Voelz --
svoelz@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers.

Fedex Ground Package System Inc., Defendant, represented by Chris
A. Hollinger, O'Melveny & Meyers, Nicole M. Friedenberg, Winston &
Strawn LLP & Scott Michael Voelz, OMelveny Myers.

Rafick El-Hani, Defendant, El-Hani Services, Inc., Objector,
represented by John William Davis, Law Office of John W. Davis &
Steven F. Helfand, Helfand Law Offices.

HERSH & HERSH, Interested Party, represented by Mark E. Burton,
Jr. -- mburton@hershlaw.com -- Hersh & Hersh.

Anthony Brooks, Objector, represented by Mindy Monhai Wong --
mwong@birka-white.com -- Birka White Law Offices.

Henrik Zohrabians, Intervenor, represented by Mark Etheredge
Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, Steven Richard Weinmann, Audet &
Partners LLP & William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP.


FIRST RESOLUTION: Ohio Remands "Taylor" to Trial Court
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Taylor, Exr., Appellee, v. First Resolution
Investment Corporation et al., Appellants, No. 2013-0118 (Ohio),
the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Ninth
District Court of Appeals that reversed the trial court's granting
of the motion for summary judgment filed by First Resolution
Investment Corporation's (FRIC), Cheek Law Offices, L.L.C., and
Parri Hockenberry, Esq..  The case was remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings.

The case began with a default on credit-card debt by Sandra J.
Taylor Jarvis, an Ohio consumer.  Taylor Jarvis alleged violations
of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), by the entities that
purchased her debt and were involved in suing her to collect on
it.

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio's borrowing statute
applies in this case and that therefore, Delaware's statute of
limitations applied to FRIC's debt-collection action against
Taylor Jarvis.  The Court further held that FRIC's complaint
against Taylor Jarvis was time-barred and that the filing of a
time-barred collection action may form the basis of violations
under the FDCPA and the OCSPA.  The Court also held that FRIC's
claim in its complaint for interest that is unavailable by law was
a demand made upon Taylor Jarvis rather than an aspirational
request to the trial court and thus can be the basis of an
actionable claim under the FDCPA and the OCSPA.  The Court
remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of those
causes of action, including a consideration of whether the FDCPA's
bona fide error defense is applicable, and for a determination of
the cause of action for abuse of process.  Finally, the Court held
that debt buyers collecting on credit-card debt and their
attorneys are subject to the OCSPA.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 16, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/6mKwlO from Leagle.com.

Burke & Horrigan, James F. Burke Jr., and John J. Horrigan, for
appellee.

Surdyk, Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A., Jeffrey C. Turner --
jturner@sdtlawyers.com -- John Langenderfer, and Kevin A. Lantz
-- klantz@sdtlawyers.com -- for appellants First Resolution
Investment Corporation and First Resolution Management
Corporation.

Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry, L.L.C., and Boyd W. Gentry --
bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com -- for appellants Cheek Law Offices,
L.L.C., and Parri Hockenberry.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Michael J. Hendershot, Chief
Deputy Solicitor, and Tracy M. Dickens, Teresa A. Heffernan,
Jeffrey Loeser, Brittany M. Steele, and Melissa G. Wright,
Assistant Attorneys General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae
state of Ohio.

Burdge Law Office Co., L.P.A., and Ronald L. Burdge --
ron@ohiolemonlaw.com -- urging affirmance for amicus curiae AARP.

Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, L.L.C., and Michael D. Slodov
-- mslodov@sessions.legal -- urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio
Creditors Attorneys Association and DBA International.


FLOWERS FOODS: Certification of Distributors Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled DAVID RODRIGUEZ, GREG EDEL,
JESUS RODRIGUEZ, and ROLAN RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on Behalf
of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS
FOODS, INC. and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF HOUSTON, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-245 (S.D. Tex.), Plaintiffs seek conditional
certification and issuance of a Court-approved notice to current
and former individuals who were employed by Defendants as
distributors and classified as independent contractors and who did
not receive proper overtime pay.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs request:

     1) that the Court require Defendants to provide the last
known names and addresses for all current and former workers
within the potential class;

     2) that the Court order Defendants to produce this
information within seven days of granting this motion, and in a
usable electronic form to reduce any delays in sending out the
notices; and

    3) that the Court authorize Plaintiffs to mail the notice
along with a self-addressed stamped return envelope to Kennard
Richard, P.C., to potential opt-in class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6meWyfzz

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard Jr., Esq.
          Arnoldo J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          KENNARD & RICHARD PC
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TXs 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742 0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742 0951
          E-mail: Alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
                  aj.rodriguez@kennardlaw.com


FLOWERS FOODS: "Rosinbaum" Transferred to E.D.N.C.
--------------------------------------------------
Judge David C. Keesler granted the defendants' motion to transfer
venue of the case captioned BOBBY JO ROSINBAUM, and MORGAN WILLIAM
ROBERT, Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., and FRANKLIN BAKING
CO., LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-581-MOC-DCK
(W.D.N.C.).

The case shall be immediately transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Southern Division.

A full-text copy of Judge Keesler's June 8, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/E5PGZi from Leagle.com.

Bobby Jo Rosinbaum and Robert William Morgan, Jr. initiated the
action with the filing of a "Class And Collective Action
Complaint" on December 1, 2015.  The Complaint contended that
Franklin Baking Co., LLC and Flowers Foods, Inc. have
misclassified "their North Carolina bakery distributor drivers as
"independent contractors."   Specifically, the Complaint asserted
claims for: violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938;
declaratory judgment; violation of the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act; and violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

Bobby Jo Rosinbaum, Morgan William Robert, Plaintiffs, represented
by Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice, Christopher D. Jozwiak --
cjozwiak@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP,
pro hac vice, David M. Cialkowski -- david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
-- Zimmerman Reed, LLP, pro hac vice, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. --
gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP, pro hac vice,
Patricia A. Bloodgood -- pabloodgood@baillonthome.com -- Baillon
Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Ann Kitze Collins
-- rakitzecollins.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Shawn Justin Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- Baillon
Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice, Susan E. Ellingstad --
seellingstad@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro
hac vice & Ann Groninger.

Flowers Foods, Inc., Franklin Baking Co., LLC, Defendants,
represented by Christopher Eric Humber --
christopher.humber@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Lia Anne Lesner --
lia.lesner@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C. & Michael J. Murphy --
michael.murphy@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C, pro hac vice.


FOUR M FRANCHISING: "Walder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Walder, Michael Cho, and Christina O'Neill, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Four M
Franchising, LLC and Four M Capital LLC, Case No. 509828/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime pay, call-in pay, and other wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate 18 Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
      Nicholas P. Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


FRESNO, CA: Possible Source of Tainted Tap Water Identified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Fan, writing for abc30, reports that it's been 140 days
into northeast Fresno's water mystery.

City leaders held their second community meeting at Kastner
Intermediate School on June 14 to address their latest research
regarding discolored tap water.

Over the past few months, they've tested dozens of homes.  There
are results but even more questions.

There are a few things the city knows for sure, about 270 homes
have requested water testing.

The problem is with galvanized piping inside homes, but why some
pipes and not others have officials confounded.

"People have been sending us photos of pipes they have, pipe
samples, it's been a lot of work," director of public utilities
Tom Esqueda explained.

Those tips led the city to this important discovery.

They say certain pipes found in Fresno homes were made in Asia and
has been the subject of several class action lawsuits.

"Now that we know that we've got a pipe that has some issues with
it, can we adjust the chemistry to account for that," Mr. Esqueda
said.

Several families expressed interest at the meeting to redo their
plumbing.

The corrosive pipes have been linked to higher levels of lead in
some homes.

And removal is the only permanent way city officials say you can
get rid of discolored water.

"I think it's really serious because lead is dangerous, especially
to children," said Betsey Lumbye, who's home has discolored water,
she says.  "So, I think it's important to get this information
out."

The city says work doesn't stop here.

They are attempting to change development codes so future homes
won't be built with these problematic pipes.

A delayed reaction to a long time problem.  But one neighbor says
it's better late than never.

"I was impressed with their forthrightness and also with the
amount of study and analysis," Ms. Lumbye said.  It sounds like
they have a lot more to do."


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Today
---------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on December 3, 2015,
the Company agreed in principal to resolve and settle the
securities putative class action lawsuit, In re Galena Biopharma,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00367-SI,
pending against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors and other defendants in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon. The District Court has
set the final approval hearing of such settlement for June 23,
2016.

As of March 31, 2016, the Company's insurance carriers paid $20
million with the remaining $1.7 million paid in April 2016. The
Company expects to pay $2.3 million in cash and $1 million in
common stock in June 2016.

Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
on February 4 and 16, 2016, the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon granted preliminary approval of the
previously reported settlements that had been reached in In re
Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.
3:14-cv-00382-SI and in In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00367-SI, respectively. The
Court had set the final approval hearings for April 21, 2016 in In
re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation and June 23, 2016
in In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation. On April
21, 2016, the Court continued the final approval hearing in In re
Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation to June 23, 2016 for
further argument on the fee request by the derivative plaintiffs'
attorneys.


GEORGIA: Dismissal of "McConnell" Suit v. Labor Dept Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned McCONNELL et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
A16A0655 (Ga. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth
Division affirmed the Superior Court of Cobb County's judgment
granting the Georgia Department of Labor's motion to dismiss
Thomas McConnell's complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 16, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/qBxV1w from Leagle.com.

McConnell filed the class action against the Department, alleging
several tort claims in connection with the Department's disclosure
of personal information of McConnell and the proposed class
members.


GRIMES COUNTY, TX: Wallace Pack Unit Inmates' Class Action OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Banks and Mike Glenn, writing for Houston Chronicle,
report that more than 1,400 state prison inmates -- mostly elderly
and disabled at the Wallace Pack Unit in Grimes County -- will be
included in a federal lawsuit that claims they are suffering
"cruel and unusual" punishment by enduring extreme summer heat
behind bars without air conditioning, a judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison granted class-action status on
June 14 to a lawsuit filed by six inmates at the Pack Unit, saying
the suit will include the general prison population at the Pack
Unit as well as inmates who are heat-sensitive or disabled.

The class-action status means the state must face the possibility
of "really having to solve the problem for everyone at the
prison," said Scott Medlock, one of the attorneys for the Pack
Unit inmates.

The case will not directly impact inmates at other state prisons,
but it could set a precedent for future cases, Mr. Medlock said.

State prison officials said in written statement that they will
appeal the judge's decision.

"The Texas Department of Criminal Justice takes extensive
precautions both with our staff and the offender population at all
facilities including the Pack Unit to help mitigate temperature
extremes," according to the statement emailed to the Chronicle.
"Their well-being is a top priority for this agency, and we remain
committed to making sure everyone is safe whether it's hot or cold
outside."

The suit was filed in 2014 after a spate of heat-related deaths at
state prison facilities in 2011 and 2012.

Experts called on behalf of the inmates testified in a hearing
earlier about the impact of heat on the body's ability to regulate
its temperature.

Dr. Michael McGeehin, a former director at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, testified that heat is the No. 1 cause of
weather-related deaths in the U.S., and 43 percent of those deaths
occur in the South.  He said air conditioning is the best remedy.

Dr. Susi Vassallo, a physician who specializes in heat exposure,
also testified that heat in the prison dormitory in the summer
months poses "a substantial risk to the health of any individual
under any circumstances held in these kinds of temperatures for
prolonged periods of time."

The heat index indoors at the Pack Unit in the summer of 2014 went
as high as 105 degrees, according to heat monitoring equipment
installed there as a result of the lawsuit.

State prison officials do not dispute claims that medications or
certain conditions such as diabetes, morbid obesity or
hypertension put people at a greater risk of heat-related illness.
But the medical expert called by the state said the facility is
providing ample water and access to fans to help inmates stay
cool.

The judge dismissed the expert's testimony outright, noting in the
sharply worded ruling that her testimony was not credible and
appeared to acknowledge only data that substantiated the state's
claims.  The other experts largely agreed that "all of the inmates
at the Wallace Pack Unit are at substantial risk of harm from
prolonged exposure to extreme heat," the judge wrote.

Texas inmates aren't the only ones seeking relief through the
courts because of conditions in the state's prison system.

A former TDCJ corrections officer is taking the agency to federal
court in a lawsuit filed on June 9.  Sam Hulon said he was fired
because TDCJ officials would not provide him with "reasonable
accommodations" as a person with a disability.  He has clinical
obesity and is diabetic.

Mr. Hulon was assigned to the Stiles Unit in Beaumont.  The inmate
housing areas there are not air conditioned.  Both prisoners and
guards have to deal with brutally high temperatures in the summer.
During the time he was working in the Stiles Unit, the heat index
reached 120 degrees.


GROUP O: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Creal"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHELLE CREAL, KASANDRA MURPHY, and FELICIA
WRIGHT, Plaintiffs, v. GROUP O, INC., Defendant, No. 13C4275 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Charles P. Kocoras granted Group O, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment, but solely as to Felicia Wright.  The motion was
otherwise denied.  Judge Kocoras also denied the plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment.

The case is set for pretrial conference on June 30, 2016, at 10:30
a.m.

A full-text copy of Judge Kocoras's June 8, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/J4fMcf from Leagle.com.

Michelle Creal, Kasandra Murphy, and Felicia Wright filed the
three-count action in June 2013 against Group O under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 201 et seq. (Count
I) and similar Illinois wage laws (Counts II and III).  The
plaintiffs challenged Group O's "practice of rounding employees'
swipe-in and swipe out times" and sought overtime pay for work
allegedly performed before and after their shifts and during
unpaid meal periods.

Felicia Wright, Kasandra Murphy, Creal Michell, Plaintiffs,
represented by Uche O. Asonye, Asonye and Associates, Jessica
Judith Fayerman, Fayerman Law, LLC, John A Singer, Asonye &
Associates & Vaughn Christopher Ganiyu, Asonye & Associates.

Group O, Inc., Defendant, represented by John C. O'Connor --
joconnor@pappasoconnor.com -- Pappas Davidson O'Connor & Fildes,
P.C., Matthew P. Pappas -- mpappas@pappasoconnor.com -- Pappas,
Davidson, O'Connor & Fildes, P.C. & Brian Dean Ekstrom --
bekstrom@pappasoconnor.com -- Pappas Davidson O'Connor & Fildes
P.C..


GS ENGINEERING: Korean Investors File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Kim Ji-hyun, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that investors
have filed a class-action suit against GS Engineering &
Construction for allegedly concealing losses.

According to law firm Hannuri, the nation's highest court
confirmed a lower court ruling allowing 15 people who invested in
the construction arm of GS Group to file a class-action suit.  GS
Group is Korea's seventh-largest conglomerate.

The suit is demanding GS to pay for damages worth 46.5 billion won
(US$ 39.5 million) to 10,399 investors.

In 2013, GS failed to disclose investment risks when it applied to
the Financial Supervisory Service to issue 380 billion won worth
of corporate bonds.  Two days later, it was discovered that the
firm's operating profit for 2012 had fallen by 64.8 percent.


HALLIBURTON CO: New Plaintiffs Can't Join Perchlorate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a group of 82
plaintiffs alleging that perchlorate migrating from a Halliburton
facility contaminated their properties won't be added to a
putative class action, the Western District of Oklahoma said
McCormick v. Halliburton Co., W.D. Okla., No. 11-cv-01272,
6/8/16).

The new plaintiffs must file a separate action because their
claims differ in several respects from those of the pending
plaintiffs, the court said.

All but one of the new plaintiffs own residential properties,
while the three remaining property damage plaintiffs in the case
own large commercial properties, the court said.

In addition, several of the new plaintiffs purchased their
properties after the contamination issue was publicly announced,
the court said.

Also, most of the new plaintiffs didn't drink well water but were
on public water, whereas most of the previous residential
plaintiffs were on well water.

The new plaintiffs may also be pursuing some additional legal
theories in their case, the court said.

The original complaint was filed on October 31, 2011.

The court denied class certification on March 3, 2015.  The cases
have not been consolidated, but are coordinated for discovery
purposes.

The plaintiffs filed the motion to amend on April 12, 2016.

The same counsel has filed a separate complaint against
Halliburton over the contamination on behalf of another group of
plaintiffs in Alexander v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., W.D.
Okla., No. 11-cv-1343 (31 TXLR 499, 5/26/16).

Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued the ruling.

Plaintiffs' attorneys include Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. in New York
and Leach & Sullivan LLP in Duncan, Okla.

King & Spalding in Atlanta and Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger
& Green in Oklahoma City represent Halliburton and related
companies.


HORNBLOWER NEW YORK: Class Action Over Withheld Tips Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that dinner cruise
line Hornblower New York LLC must face a class action by waitstaff
who claim they never received distributions from a service fee the
company charged.

In a decision dated on June 13, Justice Carol Edmead of New York
state Supreme Court in Manhattan granted class action status to
temporary and full-time servers, bartenders and other waitstaff
who worked at Hornblower.  She also denied a motion for summary
judgment by the company.


INT'L BUSINESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Vacation Pay Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory V. Mersol, Esq., of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that most California employers know that
California treats vacation pay largely as a vested benefit that
cannot ordinarily be "forfeited."  In common parlance, the state
prohibits "use it or lose it" policies.  To prevent employees from
accruing, or claiming to have accrued, large amounts of vacation
time, most California employers have a policy that states that
employees cease to accrue time once they have hit a set maximum.
This neatly avoids the "forfeiture" problem because the employees
simply stop accruing time and forfeit nothing.

Like many national employers, IBM had such a policy that was
specifically directed to California and was different from the
policy that applied in other states.  Despite having such a
policy, the company found itself a defendant in the Northern
District of California in a class action contending that it, in
fact, was applying a "use it or lose it" policy in that state.
Reznik v. International Business Machines, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-
02419-YGR (June 7, 2016).

In the Reznik case, the plaintiff worked for IBM beginning in 2012
and went on a long-term disability leave and was ultimately
terminated.  He contended that before going on the leave he had
accrued 21 days of vacation and personal leave time and that IBM
had somehow failed to pay it to him.  He relied on a PowerPoint
slide he claimed to have seen during orientation that stated that
vacation time could be lost, and thus contended that the company
violated California law on a classwide basis.  It's a novel
theory, but the court found that it did not create any claim, for
at least two reasons.

First, the PowerPoint presentation noted that it contained only a
summary of benefits and that the employees should consult the
actual underlying policies for their complete terms.  Those
policies were California compliant.

Second, IBM, in fact, paid the plaintiff for all accrued time and
actually four days in addition to that.  Thus, even if the
employee's claim regarding the policy were true, he was paid
everything he claims was owed to him.

The Reznik case reflects that at least some courts will look peek
into the merits of a case before forcing the parties to undergo
class action discovery.  In this case, the court spared everyone
considerable grief and expense by bringing the case to a close at
an early stage.  It also reflects a fundamental problem in class
litigation.  The plaintiff's case was weak both on the law and on
the merits, and yet those problems did not serve as an impediment
to the plaintiff's seeking to assert class claims, likely
bolstered by the Northern District of California's historically
pro-plaintiff class action jurisprudence.

The bottom line: Some courts, particularly in weaker cases, will
reach the merits of the representative plaintiff's claims before
forcing the parties to go through class action litigation.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Seeks Dismissal of Customer Suit in Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Companyhas
fileda motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by a customer.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former
customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers
were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by
the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer
brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint
seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and the
Company has filed a motion to dismiss it.  Among other things, the
Company's customer agreement, federal law and associated industry
rules grant broker-dealers broad discretion to close out margin-
deficient customer accounts for the broker's protection. Further,
the Company does not believe that a purported class action is
appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and
many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the
related defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against
the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with
this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel
fees and expenses incurred in defending the case shall be fully
pursued against the plaintiff.


JBG EDUCATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Travel Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mattes v. JBG Educational Group Inc. and Jamie Beth
Rodriguez, Case No. 1681CV01649 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 9, 2016),
is brought on behalf of all current and former in-home tutors and
writing coaches, alleging that the Defendants unlawfully failed to
pay compensable intra-day commuting time and associated travel
expenses.

Based out of Dover, Massachusetts, JBG Educational Group Inc.
provides tutoring services in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq.
      Michael T. Marshall, Esq.
      FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN, LLC
      189 Wells Avenue
      Newton, MA 02459
      Telephone: (617) 393-7603
      E-mail: mtm@fogelmanlawfirm.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Nypl" Case Consolidated with Forex Case
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN NYPL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN
CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 9300 (LGS)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofeld denied the defendants' motion
as to the request for a stay of the case, but granted the motion
in part with respect to the consolidation of the case with a
related case, In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation ("FOREX"), No. 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of Judge Schofeld's June 8, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/zceg5P from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs are six individuals and businesses asserting
injuries on behalf of a putative class of those who paid more in
bank foreigh currency exchange rates due to the defendants'
alleged conspiracy to fix rates.

Lisa McCarthy, Mad Travel, Inc., Valarie Jolly, Go Everywhere,
Inc., William Rubinsohn, John Nypl, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lingel Hart Winters, Lingel H. Winters Prof. Corp., pro hac vice,
Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm & Theresa Driscoll Moore,
Alioto Law Firm.

Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Adam Selim Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- Shearman
& Sterling LLP, Jeffrey Jason Resetarits --
jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP,
Richard Franklin Schwed -- rschwed@shearman.com -- Shearman &
Sterling LLP & Stephen D. Hibbard, Shearman & Sterling LLP.

HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC Bank (USA), N.A., HSBC North
American Holdings Inc., HSBC Holdings p.l.c., Defendants,
represented by Edwin R Deyoung -- edeyoung@lockelord.com -- Locke
Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin --
jmgoodin@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Regina
Jill McClendon -- rmcclendon@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP,
Gregory Thomas Casamento -- gcasamento@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord
LLP & Roger Brian Cowie -- rcowie@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.

Royal Bank of Scotland, Defendant, represented by Joel Murray
Cohen -- joel.cohen@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Melissa C. King -- melissa.king@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk
Wardwell LLP, Jennifer Kan -- jennifer.kan@davispolk.com -- Davis
Polk & Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Micah Galvin Block --
micah.block@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP & Neal
Alan Potischman -- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk &
Wardwell.

JP Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Peter Edward
Greene, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp, Boris Bershteyn,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice & Douglas
Allen Smith, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP.

J.P. Morgan Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Boris Bershteyn,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice & Douglas
Allen Smith, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP.

Citigroup, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Arthur Ruffino,
Covington & Burling LLP & Tammy Albarran, Covington & Burling LLP.

UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Indraneel Sur, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
pro hac vice, David Jarrett Arp, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP,
Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Melanie L.
Katsur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Barclays PLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Seth Paris, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP, David Harold Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP,
Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, John Darrow
Echeverria, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Kathleen Suzanne McArthur,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,Matthew Alexander Schwartz, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP & Yvonne Susan Quinn, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Douglas Allen
Smith, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP & Peter Edward
Greene, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp.

Haverhill Retirement System, et al., Interested Party, represented
by Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Brown Appeals Order Approving $150-Mil. Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Jeff M. Brown filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit titled In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 1:12-cv-03852-GBD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 4, 2016, a
notice was filed with the District Court regarding a proposed $150
million class settlement in the Case.  The notice was addressed to
all persons and entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of JPMorgan Chase & Co. during the period from April
13, 2012, through May 21, 2012, inclusive, and who were damaged
thereby.

On May 10, 2016, the District Court granted final approval to the
settlement and rejected two objections raised.  Plaintiffs'
Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 21% of the
Settlement Fund and $1,537,671.14 in reimbursement of Plaintiffs'
Counsel's litigation expenses, which fees and expenses shall be
paid from the Settlement Fund.

Lead Plaintiff Ohio Public Employee Retirement System is awarded
$18,212.80 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its
reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its
representation of the Class.

Lead Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is awarded
$3,355.40 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its
reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its
representation of the Class.

Lead Plaintiff State of Oregon by and through the Oregon State
Treasurer on behalf of the Common School Fund and, together with
the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Board, on behalf of the
Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund is awarded $14,557.81 from
the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its reasonable costs and
expenses directly related to its representation of the Class.

Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden is awarded $11,789.00 from the
Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its reasonable costs and
expenses directly related to its representation of the Class.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Case No. 16-1859, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

Additional information on the case and the settlement is available
at http://www.jpmorgansecuritieslitigation.com/

A copy of the Final Settlement Approval Order is available at
https://is.gd/57QUyk

A copy of the May 10 Order approving Lead Plaintiffs' proposed
plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is available at
https://is.gd/b8ZCdG

A copy of the May 10 Order awarding fees and costs to Plaintiffs'
Counsel is available at https://is.gd/PDbFa5

Objector-Appellant Jeff M. Brown is represented by:

          Jeff M. Brown, Esq.
          LAVALLE, BROWN & RONAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          750 South Dixie Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 395-0000
          E-mail: jbrown@lavallebrown.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Sjunde Ap-Fonden, Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, State of
Oregon and Public Pension Funds are represented by:

          Salvatore Graziano, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1538
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: sgraziano@blbglaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee David Smith is represented by:

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase & Co., James Dimon, and
Douglas L. Braunstein are represented by:

          Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-3493
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
          E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com


LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employee Plan Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Roscoe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd., Benefit
Management Solutions, Inc., Cigna Medical Insurance Plan, AIG
Short-Term Disability Plan, William Spencer, Thomas Spencer,
Joseph Bosley, and John Doe Defendants #1-25, Case No. 7:16-cv-
04294 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of all Land
Air Express of New England's employees and the dependents of those
employees who participated in one or more of Defendant Land-Air's
employee welfare benefit plans and for which Defendant Land-Air
did not remit Employee premiums to the Plans' providers.

Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd. operates a trucking company
which maintains multiple locations within the state of New York.

Cigna Medical Insurance Plan operates a health insurance service
company that offers health, dental, supplemental insurance and
Medicare plans to individuals, families and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd S. Garber, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP.
      445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 908-6709
      E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


LIBERTY POWER: BLT Plaintiffs May File 2nd Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BLT STEAK LLC and BLT FISH LLC, Plaintiffs,
v. LIBERTY POWER CORP, L.L.C., d/b/a LIBERTY POWER NEW YORK, and
LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Docket No. 151293/13,
Motion Seq. No. 004 (N.Y.), the Supreme Court of New York County
granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the first
amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/N1fjmA from Leagle.com.

BLT Steak LLC and BLT Fish LLC have sought damages from Liberty
Power for selling them electricity at allegedly inflated prices.
The sole surviving cause of action in BLT's first amended
complaint is their claim for breach of contract.  BLT then moved
pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to file and serve a proposed
second amended complaint, converting their lawsuit to a class
action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
customers of defendants.  The proposed second amended complaint
contains essentially the same factual allegations as the first
amended complaint, and asserts the same legal theory in its sole
cause of action for breach of contract.


LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE: Chambers Class Certification Bid Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. John A. Harvey denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in
the lawsuit styled PATSY CHAMBERS and ROBERT GEHRKING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:11-cv-00579-JAJ-CFB (S.D. Iowa).

The Court says the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements
of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) to certify either Plaintiffs'
proposed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
class or Plaintiffs' proposed senior subclass. The Court finds
that any inquiry into either Plaintiffs' RICO claims or
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim requires individualized
inquiry such that common questions of fact and law do not
predominate over individual questions and that treatment of all of
Plaintiffs' putative class members' claims in a class action
lawsuit would be unmanageable.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DOvDq8iJ


LIFELOCK INC: Final Approval Hearing Today on Ebarle Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a hearing on final
approval of the settlement of the Ebarle class action lawsuit is
scheduled for June 23, 2016.

On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm
filed a nationwide putative consumer class action lawsuit against
us in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. The plaintiffs allege that we have engaged in
deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection with our
membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act
and seek declaratory judgment under the Federal Declaratory
Judgment Act. On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, adding an additional plaintiff, Brian Litton, adding a
breach of contract claim, and expanding the class period to
include all members enrolled in one of the company's identity
theft protection plans since January 1, 2010.

On January 20, 2016, the court overseeing the Ebarle Class Action
granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
conditionally approving the parties' proposed settlement agreement
and allowing plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint naming
Reiner Jerome Ebarle as an additional plaintiff. On February 11,
2016, the court overseeing the FTC Action entered an order
allowing the $68 million to be transferred from the court's
registry to the court-ordered settlement administrator in the
Ebarle Class Action to fund the settlement.

Notice has been sent to the class members. The deadline for class
members to object was April 14, 2016, and the deadline for class
members to submit claims is April 29, 2016. A hearing on final
approval is scheduled for June 23, 2016.

"As of March 31, 2016 we have $13.0 million accrued for settlement
of this claim, which was not included within the $100 million
settlement paid to the FTC for settlement of the FTC Contempt
Action and nationwide class action claims. In addition, we have
$3.0 million accrued for a potential settlement with states
attorneys general for related claims," the Company said.


LIFELOCK INC: Bid to Dismiss "Avila" Case Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan R Bolton has taken under advisement Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint in the case, Avila v.
LifeLock Incorporated et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-01398 (D. Ariz.).

A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss the class action
lawsuit by Miguel Avila was held May 2, 2016.

LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on July 22, 2015,
Miguel Avila, representing himself and seeking to represent a
class of persons who acquired our securities from July 30, 2014 to
July 20, 2015, inclusive, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona. His
complaint alleges that Todd Davis, Christopher Power, and we
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to
disclose material facts about our business, operations, and
prospects, including with regard to our information security
program, advertising, recordkeeping, and our compliance with the
FTC Order. The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs. On September
21, 2015, four other Company stockholders, Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System, Larisa Gassel, and Donna Thompson, and their
respective attorneys all filed motions seeking to be appointed the
lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this class action. On October
9, 2015, the Court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System as lead plaintiffs. On October 19, 2015, the Court entered
a scheduling order pursuant to which, and consistent with that
order, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 10,
2015.

The Company, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, moved to dismiss
the amended complaint on January 29, 2016.

Lead plaintiffs moved to lift a statutory discovery stay imposed
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act on January 21,
2016.  The Company, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, opposed
that motion on February 8, 2016. On April 22, 2016, the Court
denied lead plaintiffs' motion.

Plaintiffs Miguel Avila, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, and Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System are
represented by:

          Carol C Villegas, Esq.
          Christopher J Keller, Esq.
          James W Johnson, Esq.
          Michael W Stocker,. Esq.
          Natalie M Mackiel, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 907-0824
          Fax: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
                  ckeller@labaton.com
                  jjohnson@labaton.com
                  mstocker@labaton.com
                   nmackiel@labaton.com

               - and -

          Joseph R Seidman , Jr., Esq.
          Peter J Harrington, Esq.
          Stanley D Bernstein, Esq.
          Bernstein Liebhard LLP
          10 E 40th St., 29th Fl.
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 779-1414
          Fax: (212) 779-3218
          E-mail: Seidman@bernlieb.com
                  pharrington@bernlieb.com
                  bernstein@bernlieb.com

Defendants LifeLock Incorporated et al. are represented by:

          Boris Feldman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Catherine Peterson, Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP
          650 Page Mill Rd.
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Tel: (650) 858-4444
          Fax: (650) 493-6811
          E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com
                  epeterson@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Cynthia Ann Ricketts, Esq.
          Natalya Ter-Grigoryan, Esq.
          Sacks Ricketts & Case LLP
          2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 1230
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Tel: (602) 385-3370
          Fax: (602) 385-3371
          E-mail: cricketts@srclaw.com
                  nter-grigoryan@srclaw.com

               - and -

          Gideon A Schor, Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.
          New York, NY 10019
          Tel: (212) 999-7700
          Fax: (212) 999-5899
          E-mail: gschor@wsgr.com


LIFELOCK INC: Oral Argument Not Yet Set by Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that oral argument on the
appeal in the securities class action has not been set by the
Ninth Circuit.

The Company said, "On March 3, 2014, and March 10, 2014, two
securities class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, against us, Mr. Davis,
and Mr. Power. On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the
complaints into a single action captioned In re LifeLock, Inc.
Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the Consolidated
Amended Complaint), seeking to represent a class of persons who
acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014,
inclusive (the Class Period). The Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleged that we, along with Mr. Davis, Mr. Power, and Ms.
Schneider, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, by making materially false or misleading
statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding
certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies,
including with regard to certain of our services, our data
security program, and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order.
The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result,
certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period
and certain public statements made by Ms. Schneider, Mr. Davis,
and Mr. Power during the Class Period, were false and misleading.
The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

"On September 15, 2014, we, along with our President, Mr. Davis,
and Mr. Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint. On December 17, 2014, the court dismissed the
Consolidated Amended Complaint and gave the lead plaintiff 21 days
to seek leave to amend. On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed
his Second Consolidated Amended Complaint which contained similar
allegations, but no longer named Ms. Schneider as a defendant. On
January 30, 2015, we, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On
July 21, 2015, the court granted the motion to dismiss, without
leave to amend, and entered judgment in our favor.

"On August 18, 2015, the lead plaintiff along with another
shareholder, City of Hallandale Beach Police and Firefighters'
Personnel Retirement Fund, moved to vacate the judgment on the
grounds that the FTC's July 21, 2015 motion seeking to hold us in
contempt of the FTC Order constituted surprise and newly
discovered evidence. Plaintiffs also sought permission to file a
Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. We, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power
opposed plaintiffs' motion.

"On September 18, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the July 21, 2015 judgment and plaintiffs' request to file
another complaint. On September 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs appeal from the lower court's July 21, 2015 order
dismissing the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and entering
judgment in our favor, and the court's September 18, 2015 order
denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate that judgment. Briefing of
the appeal has been completed, but oral argument on the appeal has
not been set by the Ninth Circuit."


LONG BEACH, CA: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Marquez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Marquez and Jasmine Smith, on behalf of themselves, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Long Beach,
Case No. BC623334 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 9, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay Pages and Recreation
Leader Specialists overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

City of Long Beach is a charter city organized in accordance with
the laws of California and the Long Beach Municipal Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      Caroline N. Cohen,
      WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
      A Professional Corporation
      1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
      Alameda, CA 94501
      Telephone: (510) 337-1001
      Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
      E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounse1.net
              drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net
              ccohen@unioncounsel.net

         - and -

      Lisl R. Soto, Esq.
      Sean D. Graham, Esq.
      WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
      A Professional Corporation
      800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1320
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 380-2344
      Facsimile: (213) 443-5098
      E-mail: lacourtnotices@unioncounse1.net
              Isoto@unioncounsel.net
              sgraham@unioncounsel.net


LYFT INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide 60 Days Termination Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Thornton, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-03135 (N.D. Cal.,
June 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
provide employees 60 days' notice before termination.

Lyft, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based car service
promoting itself as a transportation networking company ("TNC").

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Slack, Esq.
      John R. Davis, Esq.
      SLACK & DAVIS, LLP
      2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
      Austin, TX 78746
      Telephone: (512) 795-8686
      Facsimile: (512) 795-8787
      E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com
              jdavis@slackdavis.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
      Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
      THE BRANDI LAW FIRM
      354 Pine Street, Third Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 989-1800
      E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com
              bjm@brandilaw.com


MARKETSOURCE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adalberto Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marketsource, Inc. which will do business in
California as Maryland Marketsource, Inc., and Does 1 through 25,
Inclusive, Case No. BC623346 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 9, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Marketsource, Inc. is in the business of providing its clients
with outsourced sales support.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rodney Mesr1ani, Esq.
      MESRIANI LAW GROUP
      A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      5723 Melrose Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90038
      Telephone: (310) 826-6300
      Facsimile: (310) 820-1258

         - and -

      Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
      LEBE LAW
      A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      5723 Melrose Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90038
      Telephone: (310) 921-7056
      Facsimile: (323) 962-3668
      E-mail: nfo@lebelaw.com


MASSAGE ENVY: Faces New Class Action Over Prepaid Massages
----------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that facing
another class action lawsuit over pre-paid massages, Massage Envy
will let court records speak for it.

A recent lawsuit filed by six plaintiffs says the company forces
customers to pay for new massages before previous, unused massages
can be used.

When asked for a comment on the case, Massage Envy spokesman
Kendall Huber told Legal Newsline, "We are not able to comment on
active litigation at this time."

Last year, Massage Envy offered to settle a separate class action
lawsuit.  The proposed settlement would reinstate about 75 percent
of massages that were not used before members terminated their
contracts.  The company also offered to pay $8 million as part of
that settlement.

The company could benefit from the type of reform enacted in a
neighboring state, according to an official from the Arizona
Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The Arizona Chamber is affiliated with the Arizona Prosperity
Project, a non-partisan voter education tool that lists tort
reform among its areas of focus.

In 2013, Arizona passed a tort reform law in the state that allows
an interlocutory appeals process.  Through this process, class
standing can be determined early in a case.

Defendants can appeal the granting of class certification. If
class status is ultimately not granted through an interlocutory
appeal, the time and expense of a trial can be eliminated.

"(Class-action lawsuits) are expensive and time consuming,"
Garrick Taylor, the Arizona Chamber's senior vice president of
government relations and communications, told Legal Newsline.
"Having the ability to determine (class status) earlier in the
process, rather than later, would be to everyone's advantage."

In the Massage Envy case, the plaintiffs say they are looking "to
remedy defendant's unfair, deceptive and unconscionable business
practice of forfeiting pre-paid massages that is uniformly applied
in all of its customer contracts."  The plaintiffs, specifically,
are asking the court to reinstitute or reinstate the allegedly
forfeited massages.

The plaintiffs said in their complaint that the company's prepaid
membership fee structure includes one massage per month per member
in exchange for payment of roughly $59 per month.  If a member
cannot use that massage during the monthly payment period, the
massage is supposed to roll over, allowing it to be used at a
later date, the lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiffs allege, however, that Massage Envy slipped a
provision into its membership contract that actually requires its
customers to buy additional monthly massages before the customers
can redeem the carried-over, prepaid service.

Also, the plaintiffs allege that members who terminate their
contracts with the company or owe an outstanding balance are not
able to redeem unused massages, even through the customers
previously paid for those massages.

Mr. Taylor said settlements are common in class action cases.

"Definitely, faced with the specter of that time and expense, and
the prospect of losing, (many plaintiffs) choose to settle their
claims," he said.


MCCLINTON ENERGY: Appeal to 5th Circuit Filed in "Dismuke" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brian Dismuke filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Brian Dismuke v. McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C., et
al., Case No. 7:16-CV-23 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25,
2016, Brian Dismuke, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in the District Court seeking
to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's
fee, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On May 10, 2016, Judge Robert A. Junell denied Plaintiff's Motion
to Certify Class and granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  On
June 2, the District Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of those Orders.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Dismuke v. McClinton
Energy Group, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 16-50674, in the US Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees MCCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C., SURF-FRAC
WELLHEAD EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, and TONY MCCLINTON,
Individually and as Officer and Director of McClinton and SWECO,
are represented by:

          Rachel M. Hoffer, Esq.
          Linda Schoonmaker, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, L.L.P.
          700 Milam Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 225-2300
          E-mail: rhoffer@seyfarth.com
                  lschoonmaker@seyfarth.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: July 29 ADA Case Prelim. Status Conference Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Chicago has
become a destination for out-of-state plaintiffs who wish to file
certain Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits, a state civil
justice reform group says.

A class action lawsuit filed against Illinois-based McDonald's
Corp. by a Louisiana man alleges the company's drive-through
policy keeps blind people from eating at the restaurant during
late-night hours. It was recently filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

Travis Akin of the Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch said it is likely
"no accident" that Louisiana resident Scott Magee and his New
Orleans-based attorneys chose Chicago for the case.

"This is a cottage industry," Akin told Legal Newsline.

He noted that 77 of the 94 related lawsuits filed in Northern
Illinois involved eight plaintiffs and one lawyer.

Akin said personal injury lawyers want this trend to grow, but
that Illinois citizens should pressure the legislature for reform
and stop the trend before it gets out of control.

According to the lawsuit, McDonald's offers late-night hours to
make its products available to the public for longer periods of
time; however, customers in vehicles are only allowed to use the
drive-through system during late evening and early morning
operating times.

Because McDonald's does not allow pedestrians to use the drive-
through, "the blind are totally precluded from accessing
defendant's products during late night hours," the lawsuit said.

Akin said the fact that Chicago is the third-largest media market
in the United States could also contribute to the venue choice,
with attorneys hoping the publicity will help their plaintiffs'
attempts to gain class action status.

If Magee's case is successful, Akin said it would be a very
interesting development from a legal standpoint, as it "could open
up a floodgate" of class actions against other chains and affect
other policies, creating "interesting case law."

In addition, Akin suggested that the drive-through access issue
could be resolved through means other than a lawsuit. He said he
is not sure that ADA law actually covers this specific situation,
and that many other chains have similar policies in place in an
effort to protect their own employees, as well as their customers.

Akin said he does not believe it is McDonald's intention to
exclude blind customers, or anyone else, from being able to
purchase food at their restaurants, and that a solution could come
through "a conversation," rather than litigation.

Magee's attorney, Roberto Costales, said the lawsuit is about
ensuring the equality promoted by the ADA is upheld to allow the
disabled to enjoy the same privileges afforded to others.

"Mr. Magee -- and millions of blind Americans like him -- are
totally precluded from buying a late-night dinner from their local
McDonald's," Costales said. "Our firm handles a lot of
discrimination cases, and never have we seen such an egregious
example of a class of people being denied access to a public
place."

Costales said Magee is not asking McDonald's to change its food,
its service or any other fundamental part of its operation, nor is
he asking for an accommodation that would be cost-prohibitive for
the company.

"This is a case about dignity, equality and respect," Costales
said. "We hope this lawsuit causes McDonald's to re-examine its
policies and work with us to find a solution that accommodates the
millions of blind Americans in this country."

Costales said a preliminary status conference is scheduled for
July 29 in Chicago. He said he expects McDonald's to bring its
thousands of franchisees into the case in an attempt to escape
liability.

"This would be unfortunate for all of these small business owners,
who have no control over McDonald's policies and procedures,"
Costales said.

McDonald's did not respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit.


MDL 2284: Court Enjoins Rosses' Michigan State Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES
TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E.K. Pratter
denied the motion filed by Dempster and Gail Ross for "declaratory
ruling" on their opt-out status, and granted DuPont motion seeking
an injunction barring the Rosses' state court law suit.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the EPA began investigating Imprelis, leading
to lawsuits, a suspension of Imprelis sales, and an EPA order
preventing DuPont from selling Imprelis.  In September 2011,
DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process to compensate
victims of Imprelis damage.  Despite this voluntary process, the
plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer
fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or implied
warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance, and
trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states.  After
months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties
reached a settlement agreement.

On July 13, 2013, the Rosses filed a lawsuit in Jackson County,
Michigan, bringing products liability claims against a lawn care
operator, Underwood Nursery, and seeking, among other damages,
recompense for alleged diminution in their property's value.

In November, 2013, the Rosses and Underwood agreed to stay the
Michigan action until the district court determined the Rosses'
opt-out status.  Meanwhile, the parties continued settlement
negotiations through the Claims Resolution Process, which included
submission of their claims to a panel of arborists that had been
designed by the settlement processes.  The Rosses' objections to
the proffered settlement were eventually rejected by the arborist
panel.  In the spring of 2015, the Rosses filed an appeal of the
arborist panel decision, in which they also contended that they
had opted out of the settlement.  Unable to discern what, exactly,
the Rosses wanted the court to decide, the district court ordered
the Rosses to clarify their intentions by filing an appropriate
motion.

The Rosses then moved for a "declaratory ruling" that they opted
out of the settlement and/or that the claims in their state
lawsuit for damages relating to the diminution of property value
are specifically excluded from the settlement.  DuPont opposed the
motion and filed its own motion to enjoin the Rosses' Michigan
state court action.

Judge Pratter found that the Rosses did not opt out of the
settlement and because their claims are unambiguously released by
the settlement agreement, the judge denied the Rosses' motion.
Judge Pratter also concluded that the Rosses have presented no
argument as to why the court should not enjoin their Michigan
suit.

A full-text copy of Judge Pratter's June 15, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/gpbJLa from Leagle.com.


MEDPARTNERS: $310MM Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for AL.com, reports that a Jefferson County
judge has given preliminary approval to a $310 million settlement
of a lawsuit that claims MedPartners, a health care company once
led by former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, lied to investors
about how much the company could pay under a 1990s settlement.

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Pat Ballard issued an order June 1
granting preliminary approval of the settlement.  He has set an
Aug. 8 hearing to determine, among other things, whether the
settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" and if he should
grant final approval.

After fees and other administrative costs are deducted, the
remainder of the $310 million will be doled out to the investors
filing approved claims, according to the settlement.

The lawsuit against CVS Caremark Corp., the company that ended up
owning the former MedPartners, is a class-action litigation
representing about 70,000 investors who claim they lost $3.2
billion in a 1990s securities fraud.

Twenty one lawsuits were filed by investors in 1998 against
MedPartners.  Those lawsuits claimed MedPartners made false and
misleading statements to the public about its financial condition
and prospects at the time.

The lawsuits were combined and settled for $56 million after
MedPartners claimed it was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and
that $50 million was all its insurance would cover.

However, five years later investor John Lauriello, one of the
original plaintiffs, filed a new lawsuit claiming MedPartners lied
about having limited insurance coverage during the settlement
negotiations.  The lawsuit claims that in October 1998, prior to
the original settlement being finalized, MedPartners paid for
unlimited insurance coverage.

If the unlimited insurance coverage had been known at the time,
Mr. Lauriello's suit claims, investors could have negotiated a
higher settlement amount.

MedPartners changed its name in 2000 to Caremark and in 2007
merged with CVS.

A trial was to have been held this spring, but was postponed and
both sides worked out a settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement insurance company AIG will pay
$230 million and CVS will pay $80 million.

In the settlement CVS denies it has any liability for the claims
asserted against them and believes it has good defenses to those
claims.  But the company agreed to enter into the agreement "to
eliminate the burdens, distractions, expense, and uncertainty of
further litigation and thereby to put this controversy to rest
fully and finally by obtaining complete dismissal with prejudice
of the Class Action," according to the settlement.

CVS issued a statement on June 15 to AL.com regarding the
settlement.

"This relates to a 1999 settlement of a securities class action by
MedPartners, the former parent company of Caremark and is not
related in any way to the business practices of CVS Health, which
was formed from the merger between CVS and Caremark in 2007,"
according to the statement from Mike DeAngelis , Senior Director,
Corporate Communications CVS Health.

"The company denies that its predecessor entity engaged in any
wrongdoing and denies any liability in the action," Mr. DeAngelis
wrote.  "A settlement was reached in order to eliminate the
burdens, expenses and uncertainty of continued litigation. We are
pleased that the settlement agreement has been preliminarily
approved by the court and we look forward to putting this matter
behind us."

Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, along with North & Associates and
attorney John Somerville in Birmingham were appointed as the
attorneys to represent the class.

The original fraud allegations from the 1990s stemmed from a
proposed deal by former MedPartners CEO Larry House for competitor
PhyCor Inc. to pay $7 billion to buyout MedPartners. The deal,
billed at the time as the biggest deal in Alabama history, fell
through after PhyCor found questions about MedPartner's practices
and bookkeeping.

House had been chief operating officer of HealthSouth at one point
before taking over as CEO of MedPartners.

Mr. Scrushy, who had also been involved in MedPartner's founding
while leading HealthSouth, for a time served on the MedPartner's
board and later as its interim CEO.


MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Settlement Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has granted
final approval to the class action settlement.

Following the publication of the Untitled Letter from the FDA
regarding the Company's micronized products in September 2013, the
trading price of the Company's stock declined and several putative
shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its executive officers asserting violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The cases were consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. On November 17, 2015, the parties entered into a
stipulation of settlement to settle the consolidated case in its
entirety. The stipulation of settlement was filed with the Court
on November 18, 2015 and preliminarily approved by the Court on
November 19, 2015. The final settlement hearing was held on April
5, 2016 and the Court approved the settlement. The Company does
not believe the terms of the settlement will have a material
adverse effect on its operating results or financial condition.


NAVY FEDERAL: Aug. 12 Hearing on Renewed Settlement Approval Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit styled Ronald Munday, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Navy Federal Credit Union, the Defendant, Case No.
8:15-cv-01629-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), filed a renewed joint motion
for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement.

A hearing on the Renewed Motion is set for Aug. 12, 2016, at 2:30
p.m.

The parties also request that the Court:

     (1) appoint the Plaintiff as the Settlement Class
Representative;

     (2) appoint Sergei Lemberg and Stephen F. Taylor of Lemberg
Law, LLC as Class Counsel;

     (3) appoint A.B. Data, Ltd. to serve as the Settlement
Administrator.

     (4) preliminarily approve the terms of the Settlement
Agreement;

     (5) approve the form, content and method of delivering notice
to the Settlement Class as set out in the Settlement Agreement as
"the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances"
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)); and

     (6) schedule a final approval hearing in accordance with the
deadlines proposed in the Settlement Agreement.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Josephine L.
Staton in May 2016 denied the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.  Judge Staton,
however, granted the parties leave to again seek for preliminary
approval should they reach a settlement agreement that cures the
deficiencies identified in the Order.  Judge Staton ordered that
by June 24, 2016, (a) the parties must file a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement that cures the
deficiencies or, if no motion will be filed, (b) the Defendant
must file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.

The Renewed Motion was filed June 13.

On October 9, 2015, Ronald Munday filed a class action complaint
against Navy Federal Credit Union seeking damages, injunctive
relief, and declaratory relief for allegedly knowing and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully
placed multiple prerecorded or artificial calls to the Plaintiff
and other members of the class without their prior express
consent.  The parties agreed to participate in mediation to
resolve the action.  The proposed settlement provides for a non-
reversionary gross settlement fund of $2,750,000.

The Renewed Motion requests that for purposes of the Settlement
only, the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement
Class:

     "All persons whom Navy Federal called on their cellular
telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system
between October 9, 2011 through the date of Preliminary Approval
where the result of the call was that Navy Federal coded the
number as a "wrong number" in its records based on information
provided by the call recipient."

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

A copy of the Proposed Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i2INsjbB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Stephen F Taylor, Esq.
          Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          WILTON, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
          staylor@lemberglaw.com
          tkent@lemberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Neil K. Gilman, Esq.
          Jason J. Kim, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington DC 20037-1701
          Telephone: (202) 955-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 778-2201
          E-mail: ngilman@hunton.com
                  kimj@hunton.com


NESCO SERVICE: Class Certification Bid in "St. John" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT ST. JOHN, the Plaintiff, v. NESCO
SERVICE CO., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253 (S.D.
Tex.), Hon. Alfred H. Bennett denied Plaintiff's motion to certify
class, and Defendant's motion for Summary Judgment.

The lawsuit seeks payment for unpaid overtime.  St. John moved to
certify a class of pipeline inspectors.

Nesco is a staffing agency.

According to the Court, Plaintiff's motion for class certification
will be denied because no one else has expressed an interest in
opting into the lawsuit.

The Court also denied Nesco's motion for summary judgment because
the Plaintiff's position as a pipeline inspector -- whether he
inspects welds or utilities -- does not strike the Court as an
administrative one. Nesco characterizes Plaintiff's work as
administrative because he supervised other contractors'
performance. At a minimum, a factual question exists as to how
much of St. John's work was administrative and how much of it was
not.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qTC8e5hw


NETFLIX: Two Workers Mull Class Action Over Employment Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martha C. White, writing for Money, reports that getting paid to
watch movies might seem like a pretty sweet gig, but two people
who worked for Netflix are now suing the streaming-media giant,
claiming that the company misclassified them as contractors rather
than employees so it wouldn't have to pay them time-and-a-half for
the long workweeks they incurred.

The two workers, who are aiming for class-action status, were part
of "Project Beetlejuice," according to The Hollywood Reporter.
These people (Netflix doesn't say how many it works with) get paid
$10 a pop to watch movies and pick out the best stills and video
clips for Netflix to use.

The issue, of course, is that a movie can run two or three hours
in length, which -- if you do the math -- means these film buffs
aren't making a lot per hour for their services.  Netflix had
classified them as independent contractors, but the litigation
contends that they were treated more like employees, but without
the benefits of regular employment.  "They're also asking for
overtime, paid vacation, and holidays, health insurance, and a
401(k) plan," Business Insider said.


NEW PRIME: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik on June 14 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit
against New Prime, Inc. on behalf of the company's California
truck drivers alleging that the transportation company devised an
illegal scheme of classifying the truck drivers as independent
contractors in order to avoid paying their share of payroll taxes
and other business related expenses.  The class action lawsuit is
currently pending in the Tulare County Superior Court as Case No.
265373.

The class action complaint filed by the Sacramento labor attorneys
alleges that New Prime, Inc. hires workers to drive trucks in
order to provide transportation services for the company but
claims that New Prime devised an illegal scheme of classifying the
employees as independent contractors in order to avoid paying for
all time worked.  In particular, the lawsuit alleges that the
company had the authority to exercise control over the work
performed and the manner and means in which the work was
performed.  The class action lawsuit alleges that the company
controlled every critical aspect of New Prime, Inc.'s daily
transportation operations in that the company allegedly provided
the customer, the haul, the route, and instructions to its truck
drivers as to where to deliver the haul and deadlines for
delivery.

Further, the pending lawsuit alleges that the company
misclassified their truck driver as independent contractors and
furthermore claims that the truck drivers were charged fees, and
had deductions from their wages for various purposes, including
but allegedly not limited to, for goods, materials, services,
government licenses, repairs, equipment maintenance, and/or fines
arising from the truck drivers' employment with New Prime, Inc.
The Complaint also asserts claims for alleged violations of
California's meal and rest break laws.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, and Bhowmik represents many California
employees in lawsuits involving various California Labor Code
violations.  Their employment attorneys understand the uphill
battle employees face in order to fight back against big companies
that engage in illegal workplace conduct.

The Sacramento labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, &
Bhowmik represent many employees in California wage violation
lawsuits who have been forced to work uncompensated hours.  With
labor law offices located in Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles,
Sacramento, San Francisco, and Chicago, the labor law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are dedicated to helping
employees protect and enforce their rights against some of the
world's largest corporations.


NEW SEABURY: Membership Deadline Pushed Back Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean F. Driscoll, writing for Cape Code Times, reports that a June
15 deadline for New Seabury members to choose a new membership
tier has been pushed back a month while the club and a members'
rights committee try to work out their differences, according to a
statement issued by both sides on June 13.

Both sides met and decided it was "worthwhile" to continue
discussions, according to the statement.  Residents who have not
decided on a new membership category now have until July 15 to do
so.

New Seabury Properties, a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises, a
Delaware-based holding company, is trying to consolidate more than
30 types of member contracts into six categories that offer a
range of access to its facilities.  Residents allege that, in some
cases, the new dues structure would increase their costs by 20 to
30 percent, more than six times the typical annual increase.

The battle over new membership levels has spilled out of the
upscale Mashpee community and into federal bankruptcy court, where
members recently won the right to fight the changes as part of a
1997 bankruptcy case.  Residents are now seeking to get the
dispute certified as a class-action case, but court proceedings
are on hold during negotiations.


NEW YORK: Assistant State AG Disputes Court Backlog Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
plaintiffs in a class action suit against New York's court system
claiming that long delays and backlogs in Bronx Criminal Court are
violating their rights lack standing to bring the suit because
there are currently no pending charges against them, a government
attorney said on June 15.

"They haven't suffered any injury," said Assistant Attorney
General Alissa Wright, who appeared before a federal judge on
behalf of the Office of Court Administration, in a pretrial
conference.  "There's no case or controversy here."

Ms. Wright said lack of standing will be one plank of a
forthcoming filing for a motion to dismiss the suit, Trowbridge v.
Cuomo, 16-cv-3455, which was filed in May by The Bronx Defenders
on behalf of four plaintiffs claiming violations of their
constitutional rights to due process and speedy trial.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they are "extremely
likely" to be arrested, charged and prosecuted for misdemeanors or
lesser offenses in Bronx Criminal Court for various reasons.

For example, plaintiff Michael Torres, a glazier who says he lost
a construction job after he had to take time off from work to
appear for 14 court dates for a misdemeanor marijuana possession
charge, carries a folding knife that he uses to cut away loose
sealant when installing windows, which leaves him vulnerable to
getting arrested for violating a law against carrying gravity
knives.

Additionally, Mr. Torres, whose marijuana charge was dropped 877
days after arraignment, is made further vulnerable to arrest by
the fact that his job requires him drive to remote job sites not
accessible by public transit.  His driver's license has been
suspended.

Scott Levy, director of the fundamental fairness project at The
Bronx Defenders, said at the conference that such circumstances
for his clients make it likely that "they will be brought back
into the system some time in the future."

According to the suit, there were 45,929 people arraigned on
misdemeanor charges in the Bronx in 2015, and 12,445 cases were
still pending by year's end.

As of December 2013, the last time citywide data was available,
the Bronx had 2,106 misdemeanor cases pending for more than a
year, which was more than all four other boroughs combined:
Brooklyn had 657 pending misdemeanors; Manhattan had 594; Queens
had more than 300; and Staten Island had about 275.

Ms. Wright also told Southern District Judge George Daniels that
the government will argue that plaintiffs' claims fall under the
Younger abstention doctrine, based on the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court
case Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, which instructs federal
courts to refrain from hearing constitutional challenges to state
action when federal action would be regarded as an improper
intrusion on the state's authority to enforce its laws in its own
courts.
Ms. Wright said the motion will be filed by June 30.  Assistant
Attorney General Michelle Lambert also appeared at the conference.

In addition to Mr. Levy, the plaintiffs are also represented by
Morrison & Foerster partners Gary Lee -- glee@mofo.com -- and Ruti
Smithline -- rsmithline@mofo.com -- senior pro bono counsel
Jennifer Brown and associates Katie Viggiani and James Newton;
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady partners Matthew Brinckerhoff and
Ilann Maazel and associate Douglas Lieb.


OZ MINERALS: Settles Merger Class Action for $24 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Valerina Changarathil, writing for The Advertiser, reports that OZ
Minerals will pay $24 million to settle a third class action
lawsuit related to the 2008 merger of Oxiana and Zinifex, which
resulted in its formation.

The action was brought against Prominent Hill copper-gold miner OZ
Minerals in February 2014 by ACA Lawyers on behalf of former
Zinifex shareholders who alleged they were misled over the true
financial position of Oxiana in the lead up to the merger.

The total settlement amount is $32.5 million with the remaining
$8.5 million to be paid by the other respondents related to the
merger transaction.

"The settlement is without admission of liability by OZ Minerals
and its related entities and is subject to court approval," OZ
said in a statement.

"The settlement was agreed to avoid the litigation risk and
significant expense of a lengthy trial and to enable OZ Minerals
to focus on growing shareholder value," the group said.

With the settlement expected to occur this financial year, the
payment will be recognized in the second half of its 2016
financial year results.

In 2011, OZ paid $60 million to settle two separate class action
lawsuits.

Plaintiff law firm Maurice Blackburn, backed by IMF Australia,
which brought its claim against OZ Minerals for breaching
continuous disclosure laws settled for $39 million while Slater &
Gordon, who initiated legal action on behalf of 140 retail
investors, settled for $21 million.

Shares in OZ Minerals closed in the red, down nearly four per cent
at $5.35.


PHARMACARE US: Spokeo Ruling Impacts Class Certification Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP, in an article for Lexology reports that that
even if courts, post-Spokeo, give Congress wide latitude to define
a compensable "injury," courts should not certify classes that
include people who did not suffer that injury.  As an example,
just because Congress can determine that the annoyance of
receiving an unwanted phone call can entitle the recipient to a
statutory penalty, someone who wasn't home to hear the phone ring
shouldn't be included in a class."

The June 10 decision in Sandoval v. Pharmacare US, Inc., No. 15-
cv-0738-H-JLB (S.D. Cal.), is a promising example of Spokeo's
impact on class certification.

Pharmacare sold a dietary supplement called "IntenseX," advertised
to enhance sexual power and performance.  The named plaintiffs
purchased IntenseX , contend it didn't deliver the promised sexual
punch, and sued under California's unfair competition and false
advertising laws (among other claims), purporting to represent a
class of "[a]ll persons in the United States . . . who purchased
IntenseX for personal, family, or household use . . . since
January 1, 2004."

The proposed class had a ton of problems, including that the
plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient evidence to show that the
product universally did not and could not have delivered the
promised benefits.  Predominance therefore was lacking.  The court
also rejected out-of-hand the plaintiffs' attempt to certify a
nationwide class.

After denying class certification for those well-established
reasons, the court then went out of its way to address Spokeo.
Among Pharmacare's defenses was that some class members "were not
dissatisfied, were not harmed, or have no viable claim."  Some
class members received the benefits they expected, were not
exposed to the allegedly false claims at issue in the case,
previously received a refund, or bought the product outside the
applicable statute of limitations.  The court said that "[t]he
Ninth Circuit has been inconsistent about whether [all] absent
class members, as opposed to only the named plaintiff, must have
standing."  It then suggested that Spokeo should impact this
issue, precluding classes that encompass uninjured persons who,
post-Spokeo, lack standing.

The court did not firmly decide the Spokeo question, saying only
that "[w]hether characterized as problems with overbreadth,
commonality, typicality, or Article III standing . . . the class
includes consumers who have no cognizable injury," and therefore
could not be certified.  The court then citedSpokeo as support for
that holding.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Over Proposed Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Racke, writing for Nashville Business Journal, reports that
Pinnacle Financial Partners and Avenue Financial Holdings have
agreed in principle to a settlement with the plaintiff in a
lawsuit against the companies' proposed merger, potentially
clearing the way for a $200 million deal that will combine two of
Nashville' biggest local banks.

According to a Securities and Exchange Commission report filed on
June 13 by Pinnacle, both banks signed a memorandum of
understanding with lead plaintiff Stephen Bushansky that
establishes terms of the settlement and makes additional
disclosures to the SEC about internal discussions and negotiations
in the run-up to the deal's announcement.
Mr. Bushansky had sought class-action status for his suit.

A spokesperson for Pinnacle could not immediately clarify whether
the agreement includes potential monetary terms.

As the Nashville Business Journal previously reported, the lawsuit
alleged that Avenue breached its fiduciary duty to shareholders by
agreeing to an inadequate sale price.  The plaintiffs also claimed
that Avenue's board didn't open bidding or contact other
interested parties to negotiate a better offer than Pinnacle's.

Both companies have said the claims are without merit and have
denied any wrongdoing or liability.  Such lawsuits often follow in
the wake of merger announcements; mr. Bushansky has himself been
the lead plaintiff in a number of similar suits nationwide.

The supplemental SEC disclosures provide more information about
the negotiation process and meetings with investment banking firm
Keefe Bruyette & Woods, which is Avenue's financial advisor on the
merger.

New information added to the May 16 proxy statement includes:

Prior to coming on as Avenue's advisor on the merger deal, KBW
disclosed to the bank's board of directors that personnel who were
to provide services to Avenue had previously consulted with
Pinnacle management about a potential deal to acquire Avenue.  KBW
also told Avenue that one of the deal's team members owned 10,000
shares of its common stock.

Avenue asserted that Pinnacle did not have a hand in the
preparation of Avenue's financial projections and that performance
estimates were prepared in good faith based on the best
information available to Avenue's management at the time.


POLYCOM INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on June 15
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on June 8, 2016, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division (the "Court") on behalf of the shareholders of
Polycom, Inc. ("Polycom") against its Board of Directors, Mitel
Networks Corporation ("Mitel") and Meteor Two, Inc. for, among
other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.

Polycom Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading Proxy
Statement

The action arises out of an April 15, 2016 press release
announcing that Polycom had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Mitel pursuant to which Mitel would acquire Polycom
for $3.12 per share in cash and 1.31 Mitel common shares for each
share of Polycom stock, for total consideration of $1.96 billion
(the "Proposed Acquisition").  The complaint seeks injunctive
relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all other similarly
situated Polycom shareholders (the "Class"). The named plaintiff
is represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants filed a
materially false and misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC in
violation of the Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented
information is believed to be material to Polycom shareholders'
ability to make an informed decision whether to approve the
Proposed Acquisition.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Polycom stock on, or prior
to, the April 15, 2016 announcement of the Proposed Acquisition,
and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from June 14, 2016.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- represents
individual and institutional investors in securities class action
lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions.


PORSCHE CARS: Obtains Favorable Ruling on Authorization Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andree-Anne Labbe, Esq. -- aalabbe@mccarthy.ca -- and Michel
Gagne, Esq. -- jgage@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in
an article for Lexology, report that in Frank-Fort Construction
inc. v. Porsche Cars Canada Ltd., the Quebec Superior Court
(Justice Donald Bisson) recently ruled on an Application to be
relieved of default for failing to file an Answer to a Motion to
Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action within the prescribed 15-
day time limit.  Filing of an Answer is the equivalent of filing
an Appearance under the New Code of Civil Procedure ("new CCP") in
force in Quebec since January 1, 2016.

The authorization motion was filed on November 10, 2015 and served
on the last Respondent on November 17, 2015.  Under the new CCP,
the deadline to file an Answer is 15 days after being served with
the motion.  As none of the four Respondents had filed an Answer,
on December 11, 2015, the Petitioner filed for Default Judgment.
Although a Default Judgment filing is highly unusual in class
actions proceedings, it remains available to the Petitioner.

The authorization motion was heard ex parte in February 2016
(Justice Pierre C. Gagnon).

On February 23, 2016, while the matter was under advisement,
counsel for the Respondents wrote to Justice Gagnon asking that a
new authorization hearing take place.  The Respondents filed their
Answers on the same day.  Justice Gagnon, a former partner at the
firm representing three of the four Respondents, recused himself
and agreed to simply not render a decision on the ex parte
authorization hearing.  In March 2016, the Respondents filed
applications to be relieved from the default of having filed an
Answer.

Seized with the Respondents' motion, the new judge, Justice
Bisson, held that the 15-day time limit to file an Answer is not a
strict one and therefore the Respondents did not have to
demonstrate that it was impossible for them to act sooner. Justice
Bisson held that where an Answer is not filed within the time
limit the question before the Court is whether the Court should
extend the time period for the Respondents to file the Answer,
pursuant to article 84 of the new CCP.

Justice Bisson held that an extension of time should be granted
and relieved the Respondents from their default.  Justice Bisson
held that (i) the balance of convenience was in the Respondents'
favor; (ii) the Respondents had a serious defense to present
against the Motion to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action;
(iii) refusing to relieve the Respondents from their default would
violate their fundamental right to be heard (audi alteram partem);
(iv) it was in the interest of justice that a contradictory debate
take place on the Motion to Authorize the Bringing of a Class
Action; and (v) it was reasonable not to file an Answer before the
validity of the service of the Motion to Authorize the Bringing of
a Class Action could be confirmed.

Despite this favorable judgment, any Respondent to a Motion to
Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action should keep in mind that
the deadline to file an Answer is 15 days after being served with
an authorization motion.  Respondents should comply with this
deadline in order to avoid the hassle and legal costs related to
Default Judgement proceedings and a potential ex parte judgment
authorizing the bringing of a class action.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: "Hsu" Case Still Pending in C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et.
al.

On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us
and certain of our executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).  On October 16, 2015, lead Plaintiff
Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on behalf of all
persons who purchased our securities between July 22, 2014 and May
29, 2015.  The amended complaint alleges that we and certain of
our executive officers made false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief.  On
November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The plaintiff opposed this motion, and the court heard
oral argument on March 14, 2016. We intend to vigorously defend
this matter.


QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Over Maple Oatmeal Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
a California man has dished out a potential class action lawsuit
against Quaker Oats, alleging the maker of popular breakfast foods
should pay because it doesn't include enough real maple in its
maple-flavored oatmeal to satisfy consumer law.

Kevin Phung, of San Diego, filed a putative class action on
June 14 in Chicago federal court against Chicago-based Quaker,
alleging the company's Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal
contains neither maple syrup nor maple sugar, and therefore the
product name is "false, misleading and deceptive."

Maple, Mr. Phung contends is "a natural sweetener . . . generally
recognized as a healthier and more nutritious alternative to other
sweeteners."  He said he bought the oatmeal about once every two
months from, among other places, a Rite Aid store near his home.
He learned of the maple void from news reports and said he has not
purchased the oatmeal since the revelation.

According to Mr. Phung's complaint, Quaker first offered its maple
and brown sugar flavored oatmeal in 1970.  Starting in 1995,
Quaker "embraced a strategy of marketing its oatmeal products as
healthy (and) claims its products were the first to receive FDA
approval for food-specific health claims in 1997," the lawsuit
said.

Further, the complaint, which detailed the nature of maple syrup
and the process of harvesting maple sap and converting it to
syrup. as well as FDA standards for product labeling, noted
federal regulators only consider a product to be maple syrup if it
contains 66 percent, by weight, soluble solids derived solely from
maple tree sap.

Quaker markets several products with "maple" in their product
names, including Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal; Maple &
Brown Sugar High Fiber Instant Oatmeal; Maple & Brown Sugar Gluten
Free Instant Oatmeal; Maple & Brown Sugar Lower Sugar Instant
Oatmeal; Maple & Brown Sugar Weight Control Instant Oatmeal; and
Maple & Brown Sugar Organic Instant Oatmeal.

None of those products, Mr. Phung argued, contain maple. The
classic recipe, for example, actually includes only "whole grain
rolled oats, sugar, natural and artificial flavor, salt, calcium
carbonate, guar gum, caramel color, niacinamide, reduced iron,
vitamin A palmitate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, thiamin
mononitrate and folic acid."

"There is no societal benefit from false advertising, only harm,"
the complaint said, adding Mr. Phung and other class members "paid
for a lower value product that is not what it purports to be,"
allegedly harming them and unjustly enriching Quaker.

Mr. Phung specifically alleged Quaker violated the California
state Unfair Competition Law, as well as the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, while also breaching express warranty.  In addition
to class certification and a jury trial, Mr. Phung seeks actual,
compensatory, consequential and statutory damages and legal fees.

The complaint did not specify how much Mr. Phung believes Quaker
Oats should pay for the alleged lack of maple in its oatmeal, but
he said he believed the class of additional plaintiffs could
include hundreds of people, and damages could top $5 million.

Representing Mr. Phung, and hoping to also represent the potential
plaintiffs' class, are the firms of Barnow and Associates, of
Chicago; Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, of San Diego; the Law Office of
Aron D. Robinson, Chicago; Markham Law Firm, of San Diego; Keegan
& Baker, of Carlsbad, Calif.; and United Employees Law Group, of
Huntington Beach, Calif.


REAL TIME: Manrique Class Certification Terminated
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Abel Manrique, the Plaintiff, v. Real Time
Resolutions, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No.: 1:16-cv-02942
(N.D. Ill.), the Clerk of Court made a docket entry that provides
that a status hearing and motion hearing were held on June 13,
2016, before the Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly, and that Plaintiff's
Motions to certify class are terminated without prejudice based
upon stipulation by the parties.  The Docket Entry provides that
response to motion to dismiss is due by July 19, 2016, and reply
by July 2, 2016. Status hearing is set for August 30, 2016 at 9:30
am.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4JvZkSue


RESOLUTE FOREST: Class Action at Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a proposed class
action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and no class has been
certified.

The Company said, "Effective January 1, 2015, we modified our U.S.
OPEB plan so that unionized participants, upon reaching Medicare
eligibility, are provided Medicare coverage via a Medicare
Exchange program rather than via a Company-sponsored medical plan.
On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al
v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP
US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees who were
previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Tennessee; Catawba,
South Carolina; and Coosa Pines, Alabama mills, and their spouses
and dependents. The plaintiffs allege that the modifications
described above breach the collective bargaining agreements and
plan covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in
effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the
lawsuit. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and
intends to defend the action. The proposed class action lawsuit is
at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified;
accordingly, we are not presently able to determine the ultimate
resolution of this matter or to reasonably estimate the potential
impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements."


RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Faces Class Action Over "This Land" Song
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
attorneys who fought to free "Happy Birthday" from copyright
control have a new target.

In Woody Guthrie's iconic folk song, "This Land," he sang, "This
land was made for you and me."  On Flag Day, the question now
comes: Does the song belong to you and me?

On June 14, two members of the New York-based band Satorii filed a
putative class action lawsuit in New York federal court seeking a
judge's nod that the composition is in the public domain and
permanently enjoining defendants The Richmond Organization and
Ludlow Music from asserting ownership.  The plaintiffs are
represented by attorneys at Wolf Haldenstein, the same firm that
has been litigating public domain battles over "Happy Birthday"
and "We Shall Overcome."

According to the complaint, when Guthrie wrote the song in the
1940s, he took the melody of a Baptist gospel hymn called the
"Fire Song" and wrote lyrics that were then published in a
songbook not registered with the Copyright Office.  Nevertheless,
the 1945 book contained a copyright notice.  The lawsuit asserts
that if the 28-year copyright term began then, it was never
renewed.  The lawsuit also states that the lyrics themselves were
published without a copyright notice, which under the law at the
time, may mean the copyright was divested.

Ludlow applied for a registrations in 1956 and 1958, identified
Guthrie as the author, but according to the complaint "failed to
disclose the fact that the Song had been previously published."

The plaintiffs may thus have a few different routes towards
establishing that "This Land" doesn't enjoy copyright status, but
before the litigation even gets to this level, the fight could be
sidetracked by another element.

Every attempt to free a work of authorship from copyright control
is a bit different.  Whereas the "Happy Birthday" dispute turned
on whether the publisher really acquired rights to the lyrics and
the "We Shall Overcome" lawsuit is primed to explore whether the
version registered with the Copyright Office represents a
"distinguishable variation" from possibly public domain versions
(more on that in a future post), this newest case might have a
thing or two to say about other quirks of copyright law -- cover
songs and derivatives.

Satorii has created a cover version of "This Land" that is
available on iTunes, but also has created a different version that
uses Guthrie's lyrics but with a different melody.

The compulsory license rules allow musicians to record new
versions of copyrighted compositions without "chang[ing] the basic
melody or fundamental character of the work," meaning that
Satorii's latter version could potentially bring a lawsuit from
the copyright owner of "This Land" if it was distributed.  That
is, if it is deemed to be an impermissible derivative instead of a
cover song.

Then again, courts are only supposed to wade into matters that are
"justiciable," meaning where there's a ripe controversy at hand.
In the "Happy Birthday" and "We Shall Overcome" cases, the
plaintiffs were denied licenses to feature the songs in films, but
in this lawsuit, the controversy is more theoretical.  Satorii say
they "cannot risk releasing" their version of "This Land" that
arguably requires permission and also assert they "cannot produce
and release a music video of the Song without purchasing a
synchronization license," but on the other hand, they fail to
allege that they were denied a license nor cite any explicit
threat from Ludlow.  The closest they come to suggesting Ludlow's
potential to interfere is a 12-year-old dispute upon JibJab's
creation of a parody of the 2004 election between
John Kerry and George W. Bush set to "This Land" music.  There,
the publisher asserted rights and the case was brought to court
before settling.

As such, there may be a real question whether a judge takes
jurisdiction to determine whether "This Land" is in the public
domain or whether the judge dodges a conclusion similar to the way
that a Pennsylvania judge earlier this year refused to tackle a
public domain fight over the Buck Rogers character. (Satorii paid
$45.50 for a mechanical license for the rights to produce and
distribute the cover version.  The plaintiffs also are arguing the
payment was an "involuntary result of Defendants' assertion of a
copyright.")

These issues could be addressed soon enough.  In the meantime,
here's the complaint seeking to free "This Land" as well as
collect a return of licensing fees and award restitution.


RICK'S FRONT DOOR: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that
an employee has filed a class-action lawsuit against a Houston
employer alleging he was wrongfully terminated and not paid
overtime wages.

Tim Summers filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on June 3 in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas against Rick's Front Door Refinishing LLC
alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between
April 11, 2012, and April 9, he worked for more than 40 hours per
week but was not paid any overtime wages.  The plaintiff holds
Rick's Front Door Refinishing LLC responsible because the
defendant allegedly failed to pay its employees any overtime
compensation in violation of the FLSA.  He also alleges that he
was wrongfully terminated after complaining of not receiving
overtime wages.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks all unpaid
overtime wages plus liquidated damages in an equal amount,
interest, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems
just. He is represented by Joe Williams of The Law Offices of Joe
M. Williams & Associates PLLC in Houston.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number
4:16-cv-01563


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Jail Call Fee Cut Imminent Amid Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Kelman, writing The Desert Sun, reports that the most
expensive fee on calls to Riverside County jails were expected be
cut by more than half, easing costs for thousands of families who
stay in contact with loved ones behind bars.

But a legal battle about the overall cost of calls will continue
in federal court.

People who want to receive calls from the jails will no longer
have to pay a $7.95 fee when they deposit money into an online
call account.  The fee is being reduced to $3, according to an
order from the Federal Communications Commission, which takes
effect on June 13.  The order will also erase several other
nickel-and-dime fees that are tacked onto bills at the end of
every call and every month.

The lower fees will be an overdue relief for county residents like
Jackie Zapata, 60, of Temecula, who receives calls three times a
week from her son in the Murrieta jail.  Ms. Zapata deposits money
in her jail call account whenever she can spare some cash, then
watches the deposit fee drain the money away.

Once, she paid the $7.95 fee to deposit only $15.

"It's outrageous, but the changes are fantastic," Ms. Zapata said.
"There are a lot of people who can't afford all these fees.  Maybe
it will make the difference."

This fee reduction comes at a time when Riverside County is being
targeted by a far-reaching class-action lawsuit over the cost of
jail calls.  A series of lawsuits accuse Riverside and four other
counties -- Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura and San Bernardino -- of
allowing phone companies to gouge inmate families with high rates
and frivolous fees in return for lucrative payments.  The FCC
order is not a result of the lawsuit, but it should provide some
relief to the families represented in the suit.

Riverside County's jail call system is run by Securus, the
nation's second-largest prison phone company, which negotiated an
exclusive contract with county officials in 2015. In return,
Securus pays the county $2.5 million per year.  Securus calls this
money a "commission," but the lawsuit refers to it as
"kickbacks."

Riverside County has asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, saying
families should have sued the phone companies, not the county, and
that the FCC order makes the claims moot.  Plaintiff attorneys say
that, even if the FCC lowers rates and fees, the underlying
problem will persist as long as phone companies keep paying
counties for exclusive contracts, which they contend are illegal.

"As long as these commissions exist, the rates will remain very
high," said attorney Scott Rapkin.  "Some of the fees have been
cancelled, but the phone companies are going to come up with other
fees that haven't been eliminated because they need to find a way
to make the money to pay the counties. They are billion dollar
companies for a reason -- they will find another way to make up
the money."

The Securus system works like this: A family member opens a
Securus account, then deposits money.  Funds are automatically
withdrawn any time an inmate calls that account holder, and when
the balance dwindles, another deposit is necessary.  Local calls
cost 14 cents per minute. Interstate calls are 20 cents per
minute.  International calls range from 25 cents to 54 cents per
minute.  The system is also littered with layers of other fees.

The FCC order will change that, mostly.  Call rates will stay the
same, but most fees will be erased or capped.  In addition to
reducing the deposit fee from $7.95 to $3, the FCC order will make
the following changes:

A "state cost recovery fee" of up to 5 percent, applied to
interstate calls, will disappear;

A monthly "wireless administration fee" of $3.99, applied to any
account that uses a cell phone, will no longer be used either;

Finally, a 4 percent "location validation fee," which recovers the
cost of tracking the location of anyone who receives a jail call,
will no longer be charged.  The Riverside County Sheriff's
Department has said this fee as allowed in the Securus contract,
but never actually activated.  After the FCC order takes effect on
June 20, activating the fee will no longer be an option.

The FCC order, which was announced last October, is part of a
longstanding effort to curb predatory call costs in both jails and
prisons nationwide.  In addition to erasing "burdensome" fees, the
order capped call rates and discourages commission payments like
those that Securus gives to Riverside County.

Securus and another company, Global Tel Link, have challenged the
FCC order in federal court.  In March, a federal judge stayed the
cap on call rates, but allowed the elimination of fees to
continue, as they will in local jails.


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Oct. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing
----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Arlene R. Lindsay entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement in the class action lawsuit titled ROIE
GAMIL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, a New
York Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-25, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00981-ARL (E.D.N.Y.).

The Court certified the case as a class action for settlement
purposes and defined the Settlement Class as:

     "All consumers with addresses in the State of New York to
whom Rubin & Rothman mailed an initial written communication,
which failed to state that the consumer must dispute the debt in
writing in order to obtain verification, during the period
beginning February 25, 2014, and ending March 18, 2015."

The Settlement Class members have until Aug. 29, 2016, to opt out
of, or object to, the settlement.  Objections to the settlement
are due Aug. 29.

A hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement
agreement and for final approval of the agreement is set for
October 20, 2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ul2qhqVu


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Mojica" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff move for Class Certification, Appointment of Class
Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel, in the class
action lawsuit captioned SUSAN MOJICA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SECURUS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant. Case No. 5:14-cv-05258-TLB
(W.D. Ark.).

Plaintiff requests that this Court issue an Order pursuant to FED.
R. CIV. P. 23(a) and (b)(3):

     1. Certifying this action to proceed as class action
asserting a claim under the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
on behalf of:

        All persons in the United States who, at any time within
the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling
services provided by Securus Technologies, Inc. (including its
predecessors) to make or receive one or more interstate phone
calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when
Securus Technologies, Inc. paid the facility1 a commission of any
type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid
deposit fees to Securus Technologies, Inc. in order to fund a
prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls;

     2. Certifying this action to proceed as a class action on
behalf of the following two subclasses asserting claims under the
common law of unjust enrichment (the "UE Subclasses"):

        The Arkansas UE Subclass: all persons who, while a
resident of Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana,
Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Vermont
or West Virginia, within the applicable limitations period: (1)
paid to use inmate calling services provided by Securus
Technologies, Inc. (including its predecessors) to make or receive
one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility
during a period of time when Securus Technologies, Inc. paid the
facility a commission of any type in connection with the
interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Securus
Technologies, Inc. in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay
for any interstate calls;

        The Tennessee UE Subclass: all persons who, while a
resident of Alaska, Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah or
Washington, within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to
use inmate calling services provided by Securus Technologies, Inc.
(including its predecessors) to make or receive one or more
interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a
period of time when Securus Technologies, Inc. paid the facility a
commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls;
and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Securus Technologies, Inc. in
order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate
calls;

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HB3KpZWI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Amanda R. Trask, Esq.
          Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com
                  mgalloway@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          Robert Braun, Esq.
          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                  RBraun@cohenmilstein.com
                  elevens@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI,
          BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496 8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496 0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Susan L. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN L. BURKE, PLLC
          1611 Park Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21217
          Telephone: (410) 733 5444
          Facsimile: (410) 733 5444
          E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com

               - and -

          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          EVERETT WALES & COMSTOCK
          1944 East Joyce Boulevard
          P.O. Box 8370
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443 0292
          Facsimile: (479) 443-0564
          E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel Berger, Esq.
          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: danberger@bm.net
                  pkahana@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net


SINGING RIVER: Court Stays Lowe's Claims vs KPMG
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS JONES, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SINGING
RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Cause No. 1:14CV447-LG-
RHW, Consolidated With No. 1:15CV1-LG-RHW., 1:15CV44-LG-RHW (S.D.
Miss.), Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. granted the motion to stay
proceedings filed by the defendant KPMG, LLP.

Two putative class action lawsuits -- by Thomas Jones and by
Martha Ezell Lowe -- were filed against KPMG and others as a
result of the alleged underfunding of the Singing River Health
System Employees' Retirement Plan and Trust.  KPMG filed Motions
to Compel Arbitration in both of these lawsuits.  On June 5, 2015,
the court consolidated the lawsuits.  The court entered a
Memorandum Opinion and Order compelling arbitration of the Jones
plaintiffs' claims against KPMG on March 29, 2016.  The Motion to
Compel Arbitration of Lowe's claims against KPMG was denied.  KPMG
appealed the denial of its Motion concerning Lowe's claims.

KPMG then sought a stay of Lowe's claims pending resolution of the
Jones plaintiffs' claims.  In the alternative, it sought a stay
pending the conclusion of its appeal.

Judge Guirola found that there is significant overlap among the
claims asserted against KPMG in the Lowe and Jones lawsuits,
because the same witnesses and evidence will likely be necessary
to prove the claims asserted in Lowe and Jones.  The judge also
found that allowing Lowe to litigate her claims would pose a risk
of inconsistent results and may undermine the arbitration of the
Jones claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Guirola's June 15, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/3gL7JS from Leagle.com.

Thomas Jones, Joseph Charles Lohfink, Sue Beavers, Rodolfoa Rel,
Hazel Reed Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented by David G. Wirtes, Jr.
-- dgw@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, George W.
Finkbohner, III -- gwf@cunninghambounds.com -- pro hac vice,
CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, James R. Reeves, Jr., LUMPKIN, REEVES &
MESTAYER, PLLC, Lucy Elizabeth Tufts -- let@cunninghambounds.com -
- pro hac vice, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, Steven L. Nicholas --
sln@cunninghambounds.com -- pro hac vice, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC,
Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC & Thomas W. Busby,
LUMPKIN, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC.

Martha Ezell Lowe, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Angelique M.
Cooper, pro hac vice, A. COOPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, Joe R.
Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP,
Richard P. Rouco, pro hac vice, QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES &
ROUCO, LLP & Roger K. Doolittle, ROGER K. DOOLITTLE, ATTORNEY.

Regina Cobb, Phyllis Denmark, Susan Creel, Consol Plaintiffs,
represented by Douglas L. Tynes, Jr., TYNES LAW FIRM, PA, Dustin
N. Thomas, LAW OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC, J. Gerard
Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- pro hac vice, BRANSTETTER,
STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC & Robert Keith Miller, MILLER & MILLER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC.

Singing River Health Services Foundation, Singing River Hospital
System Foundation, Inc., Singing River Hospital System Employee
Benefit Fund, Inc., Singing River Hospital System, Michael J.
Heidelberg, Tommy Leonard, Morris G. Strickland, Ira Polk,
Defendants, represented by Brett K. Williams --
bwilliams@dwwattorneys.com -- WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH &
EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall -- carly.duvall@dentons.com -- pro hac
vice, DENTONS US, LLP, Jason R. Scheiderer, pro hac vice, DENTONS
US, LLP, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III -- ksessoms@dwwattorneys.com
-- DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Hanson D. Horn --
hhorn@dwwattorneys.com -- DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC.

Singing River Health System Foundation, Singing River Health
System, Defendants, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON,
WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall, pro hac vice,
DENTONS US, LLP, Jason R. Scheiderer, pro hac vice, DENTONS US,
LLP, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC,
Catherine C. Servati, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC, Dan W. Webb,
WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON,
PLLC, Jessie Wayne Doss, Webb, Sanders & Williams, PLLC &
Roechelle R. Morgan, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC.

Transamerica Retirement Solutions Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Marianne Hogan, pro hac vice, MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS, LLP, William J. Delany, pro hac vice, MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS, LLP & Ashley Eley Cannady, BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP.

KPMG, LLP, Defendant, represented by Amelia Toy Rudolph, pro hac
vice, SOUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP, Patricia Anne Gorham,
pro hac vice, SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP, R. David Kaufman,
BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Taylor B. McNeel,
BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Gary C. Anderson, Defendant, represented by Roy D. Campbell, III,
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP.

Stephanie Barnes Taylor, Defendant, represented by Pieter
Teeuwissen, PIETER TEEUWISSEN, PLLC.

Michael Crews, Defendant, represented by Brett K. Williams,
WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall, pro
hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP, Donald C. Dornan, Jr., DORNAN LAW
OFFICE, PLLC, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON,
PLLC, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Lauren R. Hillery,
DORNAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC.

Allen Cronier, Defendant, represented by Carly D. Duvall, DENTONS
US, LLP & Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC.

Marva Fairley-Tanner, Grayson Carter, Jr., Defendants, represented
by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH &
EDWARDS, Jason R. Scheiderer, pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP, Carly
D. Duvall, DENTONS US, LLP &Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON,
PLLC.

Board of Trustees for the Singing River Health System, Consol
Defendant, represented by Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN &
WILKINSON, PLLC,Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD,
SMITH & EDWARDS,Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jason R.
Scheiderer, pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP.

Martin D. Bydalek, Consol Defendant, represented by Calen J.
Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Jessica B.
McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, John A.
Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN & Hanson
D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC.

William C. Descher, Consol Defendant, represented by John A.
Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Calen J.
Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Hanson D.
Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON,
SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN.

Kevin Holland, Consol Defendant, represented by Alexander Kelly
Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC, Brett K. Williams,
WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Hanson D. Horn,
DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jason R. Scheiderer, pro hac vice,
DENTONS US, LLP.

Stephen Nunenmacher, Joseph P. Vice, Eric D. Washington, Consol
Defendant, represented by John A. Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON,
SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Calen J. Wills, BRYAN, NELSON,
SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN & Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN,
NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN.

Hugo Quintana, Consol Defendant, represented by Mary Winter Van
Slyke, PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH & MCDERMOTT, PLLC & Stephen G.
Peresich, PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH & MCDERMOTT.

Mary Murphy, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Jessie Carl Beasley, Sr., Interested Party, represented by John G.
Corlew, CORLEW MUNFORD & SMITH, PLLC & Matthew G. Lyons, MATT G.
LYONS, ATTORNEY.

Cynthia N. Almond, Interested Party, represented by W. Harvey
Barton, BARTON LAW FIRM, PLLC & Earl L. Denham, DENHAM LAW FIRM,
PLLC.

Francisco C Aguilar, Kitty Patricia Aguilar, Tanya R Ardoin, Ray
J. Barbour, Gail Bass, Marie Baylis, Robert G Baylis, Wilma C
Beasley, Nancy L Beech, Sheila E Bishop, Mechelle Bivens, Howard
Bosarge, Sandra J Bourgeois, Donna M Boutwell, Patti L. Boutwell,
Withee A Brabston, Michael J Brewster, Ann Brumfield, Tammy L
Buckley, Gary Burkett, Margaret A Butler, Douglas M. Butler, Ella
Byrd, Angel Caillavet, Elizabeth G Carpenter, Harold A Carter,
Carol A Carter, Anne B Chatman, Agnes Faye Cherry, Louverta O
Cherry, Willie B Chestnut, Barbara B Chestnut, Johnnie M Clausell,
Betty J Coles, Eloise Collins, Thomas A Crawford, Patricia A
Crawford, Marinell Cumbest, Temesha Cunningham, Susan C Cutrer,
Irma J Daniels-Doss, Nesta D Dees, Pamela Denson, Katherine A
Douglas, Yulonda S Drake, Phillip W Drake, Ralph Drury, June
Drury, Patricia A Dubois, Allen J Dubois, Billie M Dugger, Brenda
Jean Eiland, Wanda J Ellisor, Judith C Ellzey, Ronald Ellzey,
Walter D Forman, John Furr, Pablo Garcia, Mary J Garrett, Delores
M Gowder, Dorothy J Gray, Stephanie A Green, Jo Ann Green, David N
Gress, Annie Lushell Griffin, Rosie M Griffin, Alma Erlyne
Griffin, Gloria E Hall, Mary E. Hall, Edward G. Hall, Susan
Hamilton, Gary W Hamilton, Deloris M Harvey, Joseph Haydock, Alice
Haydock, John W Hayes, Joe A. Herrington, David H Hill, Ethel
Hill, Constance Hill, Jennie L Hoda, Rose Loquita Holliman, Keely
J Horn, Beatrice I Housley, Michael Daniel Housley, Stephen Ray
Howard, Deborah C Howard, John G Hyland, Jackie Ingram, Margie
Jacobson, Karen R Jenkins, Evelyn Johnson, Ruby Lee Johnson,
William C. Jones, Eula Jones, Dewey Kennedy, Jerald A Keyes, Peggy
Kinard, Gloria Jo King, Patricia Louise Krebs, Joseph krystosek,
Allen E Lane, Deloris A Larsen, Herman Lee, Leslie Alan Lety,
Sandra Locke, Bobbie Jean Lowe, David Anthony Lowery, Evelin
Rebecca Lyon, Leslie Lyons, Melva J Manning, Minnie Marshall,
Debra A. Martin, Daisy McCann, Edna McDaniel, Laura McKenzie,
Wayne McKenzie, Janice McMahan, Russell McMahan, Betty McMillian,
Paulette McLemore, Virginia Lee McNease, Willie Frank Molden,
Chantel Molden, Willie Ruth Molden, Stella Monroe, Dolly Ann
Montgomery, Gaye Noel Moore, Homa Moradmand, Moses Monroe, Lillie
M Mosley, Brunetta Murray, Trudy R Nelson, Patricia Nelson, Rodney
Nichols, Kerry Sue Nichols, Elnora Oaddams, Mary M Odoms, James
Oubre, Barbara Ann Parker, Clinton Parrett, Kimberly Lynn
Patterson, Betty J Phelps, David Thomas Pinter, Don Pittman, Karen
Poole, Maggie Jewel Rasco, Burton Redmond, Francis Carol Redmond,
Karen Reeves, Michael Wayne Reeves, Melba Richardson, June M
Ricks, Cynthia K Roberts, Ramona Roberts, Wreatha Robinson,
Sharron Lynn Rouse, Joann Russell, Barbara W Sabino, Flora
Sanders, Fredia Scott, James W. Scott, Joann Elizabeth Shorkley,
Brenda Darnetta Shutz, Barbara J sistrunk, Joyce Mae Skelton,
Warren T Skelton, Berthena Smith, Windy M Smith-Taylor, Rosemary
Sontoyo, Barbara Stacy, Debra A Stebye, Wanda Street, Donna L
Stringer, Sherry Teer, Marvin Teer, Marjorie P Thara, Delia F.
Thomas, Victoria Thomas- Poole, Maury Glenn Thompson, Lillian R
Thompson, Irby A Tillman, Dorothy L Tillman, Jennifer Toney, Parma
Ann Trusler, Iva Nell Vaughan, Vergil Lewis Vaughan, Linda Carolyn
Verbeck, Pamela Vice, Gerald Vice, Marian L Waldrop, Mary A
Waltman, Beverly Watson, John Watson, Shirley M. Wells, Rickey E
White, Bonnie E Wien, Steven G Wien, Kathy Wiggins, Sylvia A
Williams, Terry P Wise, Beverly Wise, Darlene Wixon, Rita Womble,
Interested Parties, represented by Earl L. Denham, DENHAM LAW
FIRM, PLLC & W. Harvey Barton, BARTON LAW FIRM, PLLC.

Barry Cumbest, Melton Harris, Jr., Joshua Eldridge, John McKay,
Interested Parties, represented by William Lee Guice, III, RUSHING
& GUICE, PLLC.

Cobb Plaintiffs, Movant, represented by Dustin N. Thomas, LAW
OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC & Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES &
MESTAYER, PLLC.


STATE FARM: Summary Judgment in Freedom Medical Case Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FREEDOM MEDICAL SUPPLY INC., Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 14-1628 (3rd Cir.), the United States Court
of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of the appellees State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company (collectively "State Farm").

In 2012, the appellant, Freedom Medical Supply, Inc., commenced a
class action against State Farm, alleging that State Farm violated
the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law
(MVFRL) in determining the "usual and customary charge" for an
electrical muscle stimulator and a portable whirlpool.  The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm,
finding that State Farm was not required to accept the amount
charged by Freedom for these devices as the "usual and customary
charge."

On appeal, Freedom reiterated its argument that Pennsylvania law
constrained State Farm to accept Freedom's charges as the "usual
and customary charge."

The Third Circuit, however, affirmed the district court's order,
finding that State Farm complied with the MVFRL and its
corresponding regulations.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's June 8, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/nj8cJn from Leagle.com.


SYNGENTA: February Trial Set in Midwest Corn Farmers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Wendt, writing for Muscatine Journal, reports that the
Midwest Corn Lawsuit is aiming for February to further their fight
for farmers who grew corn under Syngenta.

The group is encouraging Iowa farmers to come to meetings and join
the lawsuit.

The approximately 10 trials that attorney at law Rob Tully and
other lawyers representing the lawsuit will begin in February.

Mr. Tully said the case has had some great progress.

"A great move that the judge suggested was they move the cases out
into the counties so there can be more farmers at these cases,"
Mr. Tully said.  "Another major move was the court has appointed a
settlement master that is assigned by the court to see if the
plaintiff has merit."

According to the Midwest Corn Lawsuit flier, there are lawsuits
pending against Syngenta In 22 states and more than 50,000 farmers
across the U.S. have filed suit.

The case will be a mass tort rather than a class action lawsuit.
Mr. Tully said this was to give more compensation to the farmers.

"This is not that way (a class action lawsuit)," Mr. Tully said.
"We represent each farmer individually.  The lawyers are paying
for expenses out of their fees because we are under Texas law."


Mr. Tully explained that under Texas law, the lawyers are able to
take the expenses out of their fees.  Under Iowa law, they would
not be allowed to do so.

Mr. Tully wants to remind farmers to join the lawsuit if they were
affected by Syngenta's corn.

"This is absolutely risk free," Mr. Tully said.  "If farmers don't
join now, they (Syngenta) might settle and the farmers will lose
out."

This case is happening because Syngenta introduced a genetically
engineered corn trait into the U.S. market.  The corn was known as
Agrisure Viptera.  The trait was put into the corn to protect it
from insect damage such as the corn borer and corn rootworm.

China didn't approve of the corn when Syngenta marketed the
product to farmers, yet Syngenta maintained China's approval was
imminent.  When the corn was shipped, China still hadn't approved
and when they received the shipments adding up to 545,000 tons of
corn, they rejected and destroyed shipments of the corn.

Other countries followed suit and there was a loss of 3.3 million
metric tons of corn and a loss of $2.9 billion dollars.

Mr. Tully said this court case is to defend farmers and to help
them earn back their losses.

"I believe in this case," Mr. Tully said.  "I believe farmers
deserve compensation for something they had no control of."


TARGA RESOURCES: TRC-TRP Merger Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has
dismissed litigation related to TRC/TRP Merger.

On December 16, 2015, two purported unitholders of TRP (the "State
Court Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action and derivative
lawsuit challenging the TRC/TRP Merger against TRC, TRP (as a
nominal defendant), TRP GP, the members of the board of the
general partner (the "TRP GP Board") and Merger Sub (collectively,
the "State Court Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled Leslie
Blumberg et al. v. TRC Resources Corp., et al., Cause No. 2015-
75481, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 234th
Judicial District (the "State Court Lawsuit").

The State Court Plaintiffs allege several causes of action
challenging the TRC/TRP Merger. Generally, the State Court
Plaintiffs allege that (i) the members of the TRP GP Board
breached express and/or implied duties under the TRP partnership
agreement and (ii) TRC, TRP's general partner, and Merger Sub
aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of duties. The State
Court Plaintiffs further allege, in general, that (a) the premium
offered to TRP's unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP
Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders from
decreases in TRC's stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to
contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other
potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the
"no-solicitation," "matching rights," and "termination fee"
provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was
unfair and (e) the TRP GP Board has conflicts of interest due to
TRC's control of TRP's general partner.

Based on these allegations, the State Court Plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the State Court Defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the TRP GP Board
adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible
terms for TRP common unitholders. The State Court Plaintiffs now
seek to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded and seek attorneys'
fees.  On February 26 and 29, 2016, the State Court Defendants
filed general denials and asserted affirmative defenses.

The State Court Defendants cannot predict the outcome of this or
any other lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of
the filing of this report, nor can the State Court Defendants
predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to
resolve such litigation. The State Court Defendants believe the
State Court Lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend
vigorously against this lawsuit and any other actions challenging
the TRC/TRP Merger.

On January 6 and 19, 2016, two additional purported unitholders of
TRP (the "Federal Court Plaintiffs") filed two putative class
action lawsuits challenging the disclosures made in connection
with the TRC/TRP Merger against TRP and the members of the TRP GP
Board (the "Federal Court Defendants"). These lawsuits have been
consolidated as In re Targa Resources Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4:16-cv-00041, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (the "Federal Court Lawsuits").

The Federal Court Plaintiffs alleged that (i) the Federal Court
Defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the members of the TRP
GP Board have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
Federal Court Plaintiffs alleged, in general, that the preliminary
and definitive joint proxy statements/prospectuses filed in
connection with the TRC/TRP Merger failed, among other things, to
disclose allegedly material information concerning (i) the TRP GP
Conflicts Committee's financial advisor's and TRC's financial
advisor's analyses in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger, (ii)
certain TRC and TRP projections, and (iii) the events leading up
to the TRC/TRP Merger. The Federal Court Plaintiffs further
alleged, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP's
unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include
a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC's stock
price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that
allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from
seeking to acquire TRP (including the "no-solicitation," "matching
rights," and "termination fee" provisions), (d) the process
leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair and (e) the TRP GP
Board has conflicts of interest due to TRC's control of the
general partner.

Based on these allegations, the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the Federal Court Defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the Federal Court
Defendants disclosed the allegedly omitted information summarized
above.  The Federal Court Plaintiffs also sought damages,
attorneys' fees, and to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded.

One of the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought a Temporary Restraining
Order ("TRO") to prevent the Federal Court Defendants from
proceeding with the TRC/TRP vote and/or merger. On January 29,
2016, this Plaintiff was denied his request for a TRO.  On April
20, 2016, the court dismissed the Federal Court Lawsuits without
prejudice.


TEXAS: Green Seeks Class Certification of Suit v. Justice Dept
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inmate moves for class certification in the lawsuit styled
STEVEN KEITH GREEN; et alius, the Plaintiffs, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; TEXAS BOARD AND PAROLE; TEXAS CORRECTIONAL
INDUSTRIES; and BRAD LIVINGSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, the
Respondents, Case No. 6:16-cv00503-MHS-KNM (E.D Tex.).

The lawsuit says "there is currently over 400 persons joined as
Plaintiffs in this action," and that the "parties opposing the
class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally
to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding
declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a
whole."

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


TOTAL CARD: Bid to Dismiss "Genova" Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Walls granted the defendants motion to dismiss
the complaint in the case captioned ROCCO GENOVA, JR., on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOTAL
CARD, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-cv-1260
(WHW)(CLW) (D.N.J.).

In the putative class action, Rocco Genova, Jr. alleged that the
defendants violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by sending him a debt collection notice containing
false, deceptive, or misleading statements about the legal status
of his debt.

Judge Walls, however, found that Genova's complaint fails to
adequately allege either (a) that the defendant, Total Card, Inc.
(TCI), misrepresented the amount, character, or legal status of
Genova's debt to Merrick Bank Corporation (MBC) at the time TCI
sent the collection letter or (b) that TCI misrepresented or
failed to inform Genova of the effect that his partial settlement
payments would have on the legal status of his debt with MBC.

A full-text copy of Judge Walls' June 8, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/HFAiO7 from Leagle.com.

ROCCO GENOVA, JR., Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS --
ari@marcuszelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
yzelman@marcuszelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC.

TOTAL CARD, INC., Defendant, represented by CONCEPCION A. MONTOYA
-- cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fox News Join Drive to Obtain Deposition Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico.com, reports that Fox News is
joining a media coalition seeking to obtain full access to
depositions presumptive Republican presidential nominee
Donald Trump gave in a class-action lawsuit over his Trump
University real estate seminar program.

When an array of news organizations moved to loosen restrictions
on the deposition transcripts and videos, all the major news
networks were part of the effort, except for Fox.  Also on board
were the New York Times, the Washington Post and Tribune Co.,
publisher of the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.

In a filing on June 15 with U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo
Curiel in San Diego, lawyers for the media coalition said Fox was
joining the consortium supporting the drive to remove confidential
designations on parts of Trump's testimony.  If those restrictions
are lifted, either side in the case would be free to release the
transcripts in their entirety and likely the videos of the
depositions as well.

A Fox spokesperson said on June 15 the network was not aware of
the other news outlets' plans to intervene in the case and
expressed an interest in joining as soon as it learned of the
move.  The apparent lack of an invitation to Fox was first
reported on June 14 by Lawnewz.com

The prominent Southern California media lawyer leading the press
effort, Kelli Sager -- kellisager@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright
Tremaine, did not immediately return a message seeking comment on
the situation.  The firm, but not Ms. Sager, represented the
Washington Post in an earlier attempt to unseal filings in one of
the two federal class-action lawsuits Trump faces over Trump
University.

Judge Curiel has set a June 30 hearing on the media motion.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Scroggins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., and Rasier, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-01419-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 9, 2016), arises from
Uber's misclassification of Uber Drivers as independent
contractors instead of employees, which resulted in their
inability to earn minimum wage.

The Defendants own and operate the Uber transportation service
company headquartered at 1455 Market Street, San Francisco,
California, 94103.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Vess A. Miller, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

         - and -

      Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      360 Lexington Avenue, Eleventh Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000
      E-mail: PMaslo@NapoliLaw.com

         - and -

      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-0007
      E-mail: Brittany@lawicm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Provide Termination Notice, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Johnston, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
03134-JCS (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide employees with 60 days' notice of
termination.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based car
service promoting itself as a transportation networking company
("TNC").

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Slack, Esq.
      John R. Davis, Esq.
      SLACK & DAVIS, LLP
      2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
      Austin, TX 78746
      Telephone: (512) 795-8686
      Facsimile: (512) 795-8787
      E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com
              jdavis@slackdavis.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
      Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
      THE BRANDI LAW FIRM
      354 Pine Street, Third Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 989-1800
      E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com
              bjm@brandilaw.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Shabazz v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. CV-
16-864505 (Ohio. Comm. Pl., June 9, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing automated calls to the Plaintiff
and the class members' cellular telephones using its predictive
dialer and prerecorded or artificial voice without the consent of
the called party.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. is primarily engaged in the
business of debt collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darryl E. Pittman, Esq.
      DARRYL E PITTMAN ATTORNEYS
      2490 Lee Blvd., Suite 115
      Cleveland, OH 44118
      Telephone: (216) 291-1005
      Facsimile: (216) 382-8512
      E-mail: dlawgood450@sbcglobal.net


UNITED ONLINE: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on June 14
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on June 10, 2016,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division (the "Court") on behalf of the shareholders of
United Online, Inc. ("United Online") (NASDAQGS: UNTD) against its
Board of Directors, B. Riley Financial, Inc. ("B. Riley"), and
Unify Merger Sub, Inc. for, among other things, violations of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

United Online Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading
Proxy Statement

The action arises out of a May 4, 2016 press release announcing
that United Online had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger pursuant to which B. Riley will acquire all of United
Online's common stock for $11 per share in cash, in a transaction
valued at approximately $170 million (the "Proposed Acquisition").
The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all other similarly situated United Online
shareholders (the "Class"). The named plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants filed a
materially false and misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC in
violation of the Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented
information is believed to be material to United Online
shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to
approve the Proposed Acquisition.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired United Online stock on, or
prior to, the May 4, 2016 announcement of the Proposed
Acquisition, and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than sixty days from June 14, 2016.  If you
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact attorney
Darnell R. Donahue of Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the
shareholder information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- claims to be
a nationally recognized leader in the area of shareholder rights
litigation.  It represents individual and institutional investors
in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative
actions.


UNITED STATES STEEL: Sued Over Benzene Products Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------
James D. Aiello Sr. and Sharon Aiello v. United States Steel
Corporation, Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) f/k/a Sun Company, Inc. and f/k/a/
Sun Oil Company, Inc., Radiator Specialty Company, The PEP Boys -
Manny, Moe & Jack, and CRC Industries, Inc., Case No. 60600761
(Phil. Comm. Pl., June 9, 2016), is an action for damages as a
result of the Plaintiffs exposure to the Defendants' benzene-
containing products through inhalation, ingestion and dermal
absorption.

United States Steel Corporation operates a steel company located
at 600 Grant Street, Room 1500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2800.

Sunoco, Inc. is a petroleum and petrochemical manufacturer
headquartered in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.

Radiator Specialty Company operates an automotive products company
based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The PEP Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack operates a full-service and tire
automotive aftermarket chain.

CRC Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of
industrial chemicals for maintenance and repair of marine,
electrical, industrial, automotive and aviation equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Dupont, Esq.
      Mark S. Weinstein, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM
      The Curtis Center, Suite 720E 601 Walnut Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 893-0100
      E-mail: adupont@lockslaw.com
              mweinstein@locksIaw.com


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid in "Smith" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled David L. Smith, the Plaintiff, v. United
States of America et al., the Defendants, case No. 1:15-2123-UNA
(D.D.C.), the Court denied Plaintiff's application for Class
Action Certification and Request for Leave to File Application for
a Temporary Restraining Order.  The Court noted that Plaintiff's
appeal of the January 8, 2016 dismissal order remains pending in
the Court of Appeals.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2xAbqYvp


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses "Fisher" Suit Over PACER Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRYNDON FISHER, Plaintiff, v. JAMES C. DUFF,
et al., Defendants, Case No. C15-5944 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Benjamin H. Settle the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants,
James Duff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and
the United States.

On December 28, 2015, the plaintiff, Bryndon Fisher, filed a class
action complaint against the United States in the Court of Federal
Claims.  The next day, Fisher filed a class action complaint
against the defendants in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  In both suits, Fisher alleged
that the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system
systematically overcharges users for accessing docket reports.
Fisher claimed that over the last two years he accessed 184 docket
reports on PACER and was overcharged $37.

Based on the alleged overcharges, Fisher asserted claims for
breach of contract and illegal exaction.  Fisher claimed the
district court has jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act, which
provides that district courts have concurrent jurisdiction with
the Court of Federal Claims over claims seeking $10,000 or less
against the United States.

On March 7, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit before
the district court.  On March 28, 2016, Fisher filed an amended
complaint, which added a claim for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.

On April 6, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss Fisher's amended
complaint.

The defendants contended the suit should be dismissed under the
"first-to-file" rule because Fisher has already filed a
substantially similar suit in the Court of Federal Claims.  Fisher
opposed the motion, arguing the rule does not apply.
Alternatively, Fisher argued the suit should be stayed rather than
dismissed.

Judge Settle concluded that the first-to-file rule applies.
Although Fisher argued the suit should be stayed rather than
dismissed, Judge Settle found that dismissal is more appropriate
because the putative class members in the suit can obtain relief
in the Court of Federal Claims suit.

A full-text copy of Judge Settle's June 15, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/vsTpN5 from Leagle.com.

Bryndon Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Miranda P Kolbe -- mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com -- pro hac vice,
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP, Noah M Schubert, pro hac vice,
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP & Robert C Schubert --
rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com -- pro hac vice, SCHUBERT JONCKHEER
& KOLBE LLP.

James C Duff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
The United States of America, Defendant, represented by Sarah K
Morehead, US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


US HEALTHWORKS: Illegally Uses Background Report, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus X. Miramontes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. U.S. Healthworks, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, BC
623326 (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide disclosure of intent and
authorization to use a background report for employment purpose.

U.S. Healthworks, Inc. is a health care provider network
headquartered in Valencia, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devin H. Fok, Esq.
      DHF LAW, P.C.
      234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (310) 430-9933
      Facsimile: (818)484-2023
      E-mail: devin@devmfoklaw.com

         - and -

      Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
      A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
      9512 S. Central Ave.
      Los Angeles CA 90002
      Telephone: (323) 563-3575 Ext. 34
      Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
      E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Former CEO Faces Probe Over Emissions Scandal
------------------------------------------------------------
David McHugh and David Rising, writing for The Associated Press,
report that German prosecutors are investigating former Volkswagen
CEO Martin Winterkorn and another unnamed executive over
allegations they didn't inform investors soon enough about the
company's scandal over cars rigged to cheat on U.S. diesel
emissions tests.

The Braunschweig prosecutor's spokesman, Matthias Diekman, said in
a statement on June 20 that the probe was opened at the behest of
Germany's Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, the country's
financial watchdog.

German stock market law requires publicly traded companies to
alert investors as soon as they have unforeseen developments that
could affect a decision to buy or sell the stock.  Prosecutors
said that Volkswagen only made that notification on Sept. 22, and
that there was evidence that the disclosure obligation should have
been fulfilled earlier.

Volkswagen said it had the issue reviewed by outside lawyers who
found "no clear or serious violations of duty" and that the
prosecutor's statement contained "no new facts or findings over
possible violations" by the two executives.  The company had
already said in response to an investor lawsuit that it met its
disclosure obligation.

The company said the review showed no reason not to recommend that
shareholders vote to approve management's work for 2015 at the
annual meeting on June 15.

Volkswagen has said Mr. Winterkorn was sent a memo on May 23,
2014, about emissions irregularities uncovered by an environmental
group, but the company was not sure he saw it, and said that top
officials discussed the matter on July 27, 2015.

The company said earlier that the issue was believed to be
something that could be resolved through a settlement that would
not impose heavy costs, and it still believed that to be the case
in early September 2015.

On September 18, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a
violation notice, leading Volkswagen to assess the risks as more
serious and issue its investor advisory four days later.

The prosecutors' news release said that the second employee is not
the current board of directors' chairman, Hans Dieter Poetsch.
Mr. Poetsch was chief financial officer under
Mr. Winterkorn but has since left that post.

Mr. Winterkorn stepped down as the scandal came to light, saying
he was doing so "in the interests of the company even though I am
not aware of any wrongdoing on my part."

Volkswagen has admitted equipping cars with software that sensed
when the car was on a test stand and turned off emission controls
during everyday driving.  The company has apologized and
commissioned a law firm to investigate.  It is negotiating a
settlement with U.S. authorities in federal court in San Francisco
on how it would fix or buy back some 500,000 diesels sold in the
United States.  Some 11 million such cars were sold worldwide.

Volkswagen has set aside 16.2 billion euros ($18.3 billion) from
last year's earnings to deal with the costs of recalls and fixes.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: To Deliver Electric Cars Amid Emissions Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Bomey, writing for USA TODAY, reports that German automaker
Volkswagen Group plans to deliver 30 electric plug-in models by
2025 as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul its global strategy,

The new plan comes in the wake of a devastating emissions scandal
that cast doubt on the future of its once-beloved diesel cars.  It
also exposes the immense challenges that the company will face
internally.

Volkswagen CEO Matthias Mueller on June 16 articulated a new
vision for the automaker through 2025, describing electric cars,
ride-hailing services and cost-cutting as critical to the
company's future.

Mr. Mueller suggested that Volkswagen Group, whose brands include
Audi and Porsche, will "significantly" reduce the number of models
it makes and will slash almost $9 billion in spending annually to
bolster the bottom line.

The product overhaul and pledge to embrace thriftiness come as
Volkswagen is already facing a bill of more than $18 billion to
cover the costs of its emissions scandal.  The company rigged some
11 million diesel cars worldwide with software to cheat emissions
standards.  The admission triggered a litany of government
investigations, a U.S. sales slump, a management shakeup and a lot
of soul searching at the world's second-largest automaker.

On June 16, a federal judge gave Volkswagen an additional week to
file details of its settlement with U.S. and California regulators
and class-action lawsuit plaintiffs, a case that will involve
compensation and fixes for vehicle owners.

Mr. Mueller, who has repeatedly apologized for the scandal,
acknowledged on June 16 in a press conference that the episode
exposed "major weaknesses" and a measure of "complacency" that
requires a "revolutionary transition."

The bet on fully electric vehicles will be paired with an
investment in battery technology, though Mr. Mueller provided few
details of what that would entail.  Among the electric vehicles
already in the works are the Porsche Mission E sports car, billed
as a Tesla fighter, and the Audi e-tron quattro luxury electric
crossover concept.

The strategy overhaul met a skeptical audience in Jack Nerad,
executive market analyst at Kelley Blue Book, who questioned
whether Volkswagen can achieve swift cultural changes and dramatic
product transformation while cutting costs.

What's more, serious questions about the mass-market viability of
electric vehicles remain.

"Certainly electric vehicles are coming," Mr. Nerad said.  But
"there's no general consumer groundswell for electric vehicles."

Volkswagen may also find itself with split loyalties between its
diesel cars, a favorite of European car buyers and some American
consumers, and the need to develop electric vehicles.

"Diesel is so deeply entrenched in Europe," he said.  "That's the
home field for Volkswagen. It's hard to imagine they would step
away from that."

Speaking at a press conference in Germany that was live-streamed
online and translated into English, Mr. Mueller said Volkswagen's
turnaround would hinge on plans to:

   -- Launch a new "mobility services" division based in Berlin,
giving it "sufficient distance" from the automaker's Wolfsburg,
Germany, headquarters.  The division will manage Volkswagen's
recent $300 million investment in ride-hailing app Gett.

   -- Increase Volkswagen Group's operating profit margin from
about 6% before one-time items in 2015 to between 7% and 8% by
2025, fueled by a reduction in R&D and capital expenditures as a
percentage of revenue.

   -- Expand the automaker's self-driving car capabilities.
Volkswagen will hire 1,000 "software specialists" to bolster its
capabilities in autonomous vehicles, Mr. Mueller said.

"We believe in the future of this technology, its rapid spread and
its revolutionary potential," Mr. Mueller said.

   -- Turn Volkswagen's components division into "a separate
company." The unit currently employs about 67,000 workers at 26
locations worldwide.


WEATHERBY INC: $500,000 Class Action Settlement in "Fiant" Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Stephen W. Fiant, on behalf of himself and a
class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WEATHERBY,
INC., the Defendant, Case 2:15-cv-02991-BRO-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Beverly Reid O'Connell:

     -- grants Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement, and

     -- grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards.

The Settlement Class is defined as "all of Defendants' current and
former non-exempt employees from April 22, 2011 through the date
of Preliminary Approval, or February 3, 2016. The agreement also
defines the "FLSA Overtime Subclass" as all hourly non-exempt
employees employed by Defendant throughout the United States at
any time from April 22, 2012 through the date of the Preliminary
Approval Order [February 3, 2016] who opt in and who, during that
period, received quarterly sales bonuses and earned overtime wages
during the corresponding periods during which these quarterly
sales bonuses were earned, but were not included in the regular
rate of pay for weekly overtime purposes."

Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendant agrees to pay the sum of the
Individual Settlement Payments, the Class Representative
Enhancement Award, the Class Counsel Award and Costs, the PAGA
Allocation to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency,
and the Settlement Administration Costs, up to the Maximum
Settlement Fund of $500,000. Individual Settlement Payments will
be allocated as follows: one-third as wages, one-third as
interest, and one-third as penalties.

The Court grants Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of
$140,000 as well as costs in the amount of $3,842.28, and grants
Plaintiff an incentive award in the amount of $10,000. The Court
further grants claim administrator expenses in the amount of
$8,500 to CPT.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UCz3wnqo


WISH-I-AH SKILLED: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Licon" Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KATHY LICON et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. WISH-I-AH SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE LLC,
Defendant and Appellant, No. F070304 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of
Appeals of California, Fifth District affirmed the denial of the
defendant's motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims
against it.

The plaintiff, Kathy Licon, filed an action on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, alleging causes of action for
wage and hour violations against her employer, Wish-I-Ah Skilled
Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC.  The plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, adding Denise as a named plaintiff and adding
causes of action alleged by her as a private attorney general,
seeking penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of herself
and other employees of Wish-I-Ah.  Wish-I-Ah responded with a
petition to compel arbitration of the disputes.  It presented
evidence that the plaintiffs had signed various documents agreeing
to be bound by Wish-I-Ah's arbitration program or acknowledging
receipt of the booklet that described it and contained its
provisions.  The plaintiffs opposed the petition, asserting none
of the documents presented by Wish-I-Ah constituted an agreement
to arbitrate their employment disputes; alternatively, if such an
agreement existed, the provisions of the arbitration program were
unconscionable and should not be enforced, and the arbitration
agreement excluded or did not apply to the class claims or the
private attorney general claims.

The trial court denied the petition, finding the arbitration
agreement expressly excluded class and collective actions.
Further, the agreement submitted by Wish-I-Ah was unconscionable,
and the unconscionable provisions should not be severed.  Wish-I-
Ah appealed from the denial of its petition to compel arbitration.

On appeal, the appellate court concluded that the arbitration
agreement excluded class and collective actions from its scope, so
the plaintiffs were not required to arbitrate the class claims or
the private attorney general claims included in their first
amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 15, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/srJNnb from Leagle.com.

Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, John B. Golper --
jgolper@brgslaw.com -- and Jeffrey P. Fuchsman --
jfuchsman@brgslaw.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Sutton Hague Law Corporation, S. Brett Sutton --
brett@suttonhague.com -- Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com --
Joseph V. Macias -- joseph@suttonhague.com -- and Wesley Carlson
-- wesley@suttonhague.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


YALCIN INC: "Yanez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Yanez, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Yalcin, Inc. d/b/a Springfield Marble & Granite
("SMG") and Bilgehan Yalcin, Case No. 1:16-cv-00645-JCC-JFA (E.D.
Va., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants operate a concrete construction company with its
principal office located in Alexandria, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YM KNIT: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yanira Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YM Knit, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No. BC623259 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 9, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, YM Knit, Inc. is in the
knitting goods and supplies industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


ZAFGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bessler" Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, AVIAD BESSLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZAFGEN, INC. and THOMAS
E. HUGHES, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-13618-FDS (D.
Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV held a hearing on Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on June 20
and thereafter took the matter under advisement.

Zafgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on October 21, 2015, a
purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E. Hughes, captioned
Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E. Hughes, No. 1:15-cv-
13618. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2016. The
amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the Company's clinical trials for its drug beloranib. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages in
connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price
between June 19, 2014 and October 16, 2015, as a result of those
allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as punitive
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Plaintiffs opposed the request.

The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this
action and therefore cannot estimate possible losses or ranges of
losses, if any.

Zafgen, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to
significantly improving the health and well-being of patients
affected by obesity and complex metabolic disorders.

Aviad Bessler, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situtated, is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joel Anderson Fleming, Esq.
          Block & Leviton LLP
          Suite 400, 155 Federal Street,
          Boston, MA 02110
          Tel: (617) 388-0622
          E-mail: joel@blockesq.com

Plaintiff Theodore J. Daly is represented by:

          Eugene R. Richard, Esq.
          Wayne, Richard & Hurwitz, LLP
          One Boston Place, Suite 3620
          Boston, MA 02108
          Tel: (617) 720-7870
          Fax: (617) 720-7877
          E-mail: generichard@wrhmlaw.com

Plaintiff Terry Brennan is represented by:

          Gonen Haklay, Esq.
          Rosen Law Firm
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Tel: (215) 600-2817
          E-mail: ghaklay@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Tel: (215) 600-2817
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

Intervenor Plaintiff Oakland County Employees' Retirement System
is represented by:

          Ian N. McCallister, Esq.
          Kreindler & Kreindler LLP
          855 Boylston St.
          Boston, MA 02116
          Tel: (617) 933-5920
          E-mail: imccallister@kreindler.com

Defendants are represented by:

          Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
          Adam Slutsky, Esq.
          Kate E. MacLeman, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Tel: 617.570.1000
          Fax: 617.523.1231
          E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com
                  aslutsky@goodwinprocter.com
                  kmacleman@goodwinprocter.com


* Chicago Business Leaders Balk at Burke's New Arbitration Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fran Spielman, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that
companies that use "forced arbitration clauses" to resolve
disputes with employees and consumers would be prohibited from
doing business with the city of Chicago under an ordinance
advanced June 15 over fierce opposition from the business
community.

Ald. Edward Burke (14th) pushed the ban he championed through the
City Council Finance Committee he chairs, but he agreed to hold
the ordinance in committee after Mayor Rahm Emanuel raised
"serious concerns" about the impact on city operations and
spending.

It happened one day before the business community is poised to
take yet another financial hit: an ordinance requiring Chicago
employers large and small to provide their employees with at least
five paid sick days a year.

Business leaders have likened it to death by a thousand cuts. They
argue that it's not any one government mandate that's so damaging,
but the cumulative effect.

"In the past 14 months, they've passed a higher minimum wage, the
largest property tax increase in Chicago history -- paid
disproportionately by the business community -- and a plastic bag
ban, to say nothing of a recent Cook County sales tax and hotel
tax increase and all of the uncertainty in Springfield," said Mike
Reever, vice president of government relations at the Chicagoland
Chamber of Commerce.

"These policies do have a cumulative impact. . . . You're layering
one policy on top of another and all of those costs are being paid
for by the employer community," he said. "Once again, it's putting
Chicago on an island.  That's a competitive disadvantage for
employers."

Tanya Triche, vice president and general counsel of the Illinois
Retail Merchants Association, said the business community has
endured two years of piling on that also includes a ton of
regulations and taxes on tobacco products, as well as Mayor Rahm
Emanuel's plan to raise the smoking age to 21.

"It's really been relentless.  We have had a difficult time trying
to react and prepare for the financial impact of all of these
regulations.  More property taxes are coming down the pike. This
is less about whether people deserve paid sick leave and more
about how much more existing businesses can take,"
Ms. Triche said.

Ald. Proco Joe Moreno (1st), chief sponsor of the sick leave
ordinance, said the version expected to be approved on June 16 by
the City Council's Committee on Workforce Development is "good for
business."

"We want healthy workers . . . . It's good for the folks who don't
have to decide whether to take a day off to take a sick day," he
said.

"I don't want to go to a deli with my kids and worry that the guy
in back is sick while making our sandwiches . . . . [If so,] they
should put up a sign: 'Buyer beware.  The food you have about to
eat may have been made by somebody who has the flu because we
don't give our employees sick days.'"

Mr. Burke's arbitration ordinance would prohibit city contractors
and their affiliates from using "pre-dispute arbitration
agreements" to resolve disputes with employees or consumers as
well as disagreements stemming from civil rights complaints.

Critics contend that "forced arbitration" denies consumers and
employees their constitutional right to have complaints heard by
an impartial judge and jury.

They complain about the "secrecy" and "unfairness" of arbitration,
where the deck is often stacked against consumers by arbitrators
with a pro-business bias because they want to stay busy.
Proponents further claim that arbitration requirements prevent
consumers from "banding together" in a class-action lawsuit.

Business groups counter that they use arbitration because it's
"faster and cheaper than going to court."  They further argue that
the court system is "overwhelmed with class-action cases," saying
class-action wage and hour cases are the "largest single" category
of cases filed in U.S. courts.

"The number of cases will only continue to increase due to the
focus on wage and hour issues such as overtime and minimum wage.
Companies need a better way than a court battle to resolve these
issues," David Ritter, co-chairman of the Employment Law Forum for
the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, told aldermen.

"Arbitration does not permit companies to shield or run away from
violations.  It is just a more efficient manner to resolve
disputes for all parties."

Mr. Ritter argued that Burke's ordinance would "harm our already
fragile economic climate by adding another unnecessary regulatory
burden on business" while doing "very little" to protect consumers
and employees.

"Who really wins with this proposed ordinance are the trial
attorneys who receive significant legal fees from class actions,
while the plaintiffs get very little in terms of relief," Ritter
said.

Mr. Burke's clout-heavy law firm has helped presumptive Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump shave $11.7 million off the
property tax bill for his riverfront hotel and condominium tower
over seven years.

The arbitration ordinance helps him look like he's standing up for
the little guy.

On June, Mr. Burke called class-action lawsuits "an important
check" on business and "the only realistic way that an individual
with limited resources can fight a wealthy corporation."

"They can deter future corporate misconduct because even small
payouts multiplied across an entire class, can amount to a very
large amount," Mr. Burke said.

The Finance Committee chairman then quoted what U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a 2011 dissent: "The realistic
alternative to a class-action is not seventeen million individual
suits, but zero individual suits as only a lunatic or a fanatic
sues for $30," Burke said.


* Successful Securities Class Action Law Firms Picked Right Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Greene, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the
plaintiffs' firms that are the most successful in securities class
actions have one thing in common: they pick the right cases up-
front.

Spending extra effort on the front end to evaluate cases before
accepting the responsibility of serving as class counsel is
critically important, Darren Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- a
founding partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, told
Bloomberg BNA.

A successful civil action requires not only establishing
defendants' misconduct, but providing a sensible path to recovery
for clients, Mr. Robbins said.  "We are acutely sensitive to this
reality and utilize teams of investigators, former prosecutors and
forensic accountants to delve into, assess and formulate potential
claims."

The strategy has paid off for the firm.  Robbins Geller was the
top in 2015 in representing clients in securities class actions,
recovering more than $1.5 billion in approved settlements,
according to a report by Institutional Shareholder Services
Securities Class Action Services LLC.

Darren Check -- dcheck@ktmc.com -- a partner at Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP--another firm that made ISS's top 10--said
it's a matter of having quality lawyers that can evaluate and
investigate claims early to find out as much as possible so that
the firm knows what it is getting into.

Until a lawsuit clears the motion-to-dismiss stage, plaintiffs
can't get discovery and are investigating potential corporate
fraud based primarily on what's publicly available, he said.

Settlement Amounts Up

Federal securities class actions can be extremely lucrative for
plaintiffs' attorneys, who generally are paid from the money they
recover for clients.

According to a Cornerstone Research report, 80 securities class
action settlements were approved in 2015, the highest number since
2010 (61 CARE, 3/30/16).  The report also found that total
settlement dollars rose to more than $3 billion last year--a 184
percent increase from 2014's historic low, and an increase
compared to the annual average of $2.8 billion over the last five
years.

Meanwhile, the number of cases continues to climb. Last year,
securities class lawsuits hit a seven-year high with 234
complaints filed, the highest number since the financial crisis, a
National Economic Research Associates Inc. report found (17 CARE,
1/27/16).

In 2015, four plaintiffs' firms obtained over $500 million in
settlements for their clients in cases in which they served as
lead or co-lead counsel, according to the ISS report, which ranked
the top firms in terms of settlement amounts.

After Robbins Geller, the other top firms were Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, and Miller Law
Firm. Kessler Topaz was seventh.

While finding the right case is paramount, plaintiffs' attorneys
told Bloomberg BNA that that can take a significant toll on the
firm's resources.

Michael Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- a partner at Labaton
Sucharow LLP, said his firm spends an enormous amount of time
performing due diligence on claims before recommending them to
clients.  "This can require a substantial outlay of resources,
including retaining industry experts and analyzing enormous
amounts of data," he told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.

Labaton Sucharow was eighth on ISS's list.

Other Qualities

In addition to picking the right claims, a successful firm is
defined by integrity, character and hard work, Mr. Robbins said.
"You can't have a successful plaintiffs' firm if you are not
willing to put your money where your mouth is," he said. "You have
to go all in, not test the waters."

At the same time, securities fraud is constantly evolving. Stocker
stressed that to stay successful, firms have to educate themselves
on new trends in the markets, whether it's cybersecurity or high-
frequency trading.

"This makes the practice very different from something like
contract law, where fact patterns and legal authority are
relatively static," he said.

Firms also must adapt to the increasing globalization of
securities litigation.

There are securities cases being litigated all over the world as
investors' portfolios become more global, said Mr. Check, whose
practice includes working with many types of institutional
investors in corporate fraud cases.  The firms that have been
really successful are the ones that understand how to diversify
their practice to best serve their clients' needs, he said.

Moreover, firms must show they understand the business and market
environment as well as the law, Stocker said.  He noted that the
firms that really distinguish themselves in a competitive
environment are the ones that are prepared to advocate for
investor interests outside of the courtroom -- especially in the
media.

Roadblocks

It is no easy ride for plaintiffs' attorneys, who face a myriad of
challenges, not least of which is competition from other
plaintiffs' firms. They said they also have to fight the influence
of lobbyists and business groups on Capitol Hill, and cope with
the high vacancy of district court judges, which leads to delays
in case resolution.

Moreover, defendant corporations frequently are well-funded and
represented by the nation's top law firms.  Mr. Stocker said
Labaton Sucharow's attorneys work hard to "even the playing field"
when they litigate against big defense firms.

"Defendants are often their own best industry experts--they
already understand the business they are in," Mr. Stocker said.
"When we litigate a case in a sector unfamiliar to us, we work
with top industry experts to make sure we are at no disadvantage.
This can be critical to your case when dealing with fraud claims
relating to the pharmaceutical sector or asset-backed securities,
as we often do."

Meanwhile, some firms measure success in ways other than winning a
high-dollar settlement in a large securities case.

Mr. Stocker said his firm pursues smaller actions that it thinks
can expand the law to better protect investors.

Mr. Robbins similarly said success isn't always measured in terms
of dollars and cents.  He said his firm over the years has
dedicated time, energy, and the full range of its resources for
many pro bono and charitable actions that aren't related to
securities fraud.  "We work hard to be good citizens who give back
to the communities we live and work in," he said.


                            *********

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  * * *