CAR_Public/160627.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 27, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 127




                            Headlines


1906 COLLINS: "Inestroza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
ACE AMERICAN: "Morgan" Sues Over Additional Premiums
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Motion to Dismiss "Gauquie" Class Suit Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: "United Food" Files Anti-trust Suit
AMERICAN EQUITY: Pegs Litigation Liability at $11.1 Million

AMERICAN FAMILY: Ruling From N.D. Ill. in "Krug" Suit Appealed
AMOUN INC: "Soriano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Heard Appeal
ARKANSAS: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Gerke" Class Action
ASTA FUNDING: Parties Continue to Discuss Global Settlement

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Opposed Motion to Vacate Judgment
BANCO BRADESCO: Violated Securities Laws, "Bryan" Suit Claims
BANCORP INC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Fletcher" Pending
BARCLAYS BANK: Kessler Topaz & Robbins Geller to Lead Class Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Appeals Ruling From "Strougo" Securities Suit

BERKSHIRE HILLS: Faces Depositors' Class Suit in Massachusetts
BIG TEN: Sued in Ill. Over Concealing Football Players Injuries
BIG TEN: "Strinko" Sues Over Football Health Hazard
CAPITAL ONE: Must Defend Against "Rogers" TCPA Suit
CENERGY INTL: "Wright" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Novoa" Settlement Has Final Court Okay
CHIASMA INC: Made False Disclosure Over Mycapssa Methodology
CHINA XD: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaint
CHUNG CHUN: "Tobias" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA
COLLEGE NETWORK: Cal. Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Bid

CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit
CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Has Conditional Certification
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Taylor Files Appeal From "Buckley" Suit Ruling
DAVID BOONE: "Adams" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
DUANE READE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in "Jacob" Suit

DUROLITE INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
ELIASEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims v. Owners Barred by Bankruptcy
EOS HOLDINGS: "DiGiorgio" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
EVERI HOLDINGS: Class Certification Motion Pending
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Appeal Pending

GENERAL MOTORS: Marro Appeals Ruling From Teachers Class Suit
HELPING HANDS: "Prishlyak" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
HESKA CORPORATION: Still Defends "Fauley" Suit in N.D. Ill.
HOLY CROSS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Termination of Pension Plan
HOME CARE: "Dillow" Suit Seeks Monetary Relief Under FLSA

IMMUNOMEDICS, INC: Sued in N.J. Over Securities' Inflated Prices
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Class Actions
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Case
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Generic Drug Pricing Class Action Ongoing
IMPAX LABORATORIES: 2 AWP Class Suits Ongoing in Philadelphia

INNERWORKINGS INC: Agreement in Principle Reached
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing to Approve Deal Not Yet Set
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Court Tosses "Reznik" Vacation Wages Suit
INTREXON CORPORATION: Faces Hoffman and Gibrall Class Actions
J2 GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Motions Pending in Paldo Sign Case

J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Pending
J2 GLOBAL: Settlement in LEO and Dancel Cases Awaits Approval
JAGUAR ENERGY: Combs Appeals Ruling From Labor Suit to 10th Cir.
JAKKS PACIFIC: "Melot" Class Suit Still in Early Stages
JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Friedman" Class Suit

KCG MANAGEMENT: "Carbajal" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL: "Chisolm" Suit Denied Class Action Status
KMART CORPORATION: "Hautur" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
LEASING ENTERPRISES: 5th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Defending Class Suit in New York

MDL 2295: $18 Million Class Action Settlement Pending
MITEL NETWORKS: "Solak" Sues overt Shady Merger Deal
MODEL N: Calif. Class Action Settlement Wins Approval
MONEY MUTUAL: Court Denies Defendants' Discovery & Deposition Bid
MONGE SERVICES: "Tobar" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA

NATIONAL DEBT: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
NEOVASC INC: Sued in D. Mass. Over Violations of Exchange Act
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Today
NIMBLE STORAGE: Schwartz and Goldstein Lawsuits Consolidated
NYC BUILDERS: "Ferrari" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA

PACIFIC GATEWAY: "Hochstetler" Settlement Wins Final Approval
PEAKS PROPERTIES: Violated Disabilities Act, "Foster" Suit Claims
PEVETO COMPANIES: "Herron" Suit Denied Conditional Certification
PHO HUYNH: "Tam" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PHOENIX COMPANIES: Updates on Shareholder Litigation

PHOENIX COMPANIES: Updates Consent Solicitation Litigation
PK PROMOTIONS: "Haas" Suit Seeks Overtime Wage Under FLSA
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Updates on Line 901 Incident Actions
RED WING: "Zajac" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Withheld Tips
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Motion to Dismiss Complaint Remains Pending

SAMI'S PITA: "Alhassan" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Hall" Suit
SEVERN TRENT: Lowrimore Appeals E.D. Okla. Ruling to 10th Circuit
SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL: "Shelton" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SUFFOLK COUNTY: "Smith" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

TARGET CORP: Just Appeals Minnesota Court Ruling to 8th Circuit
TATE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Court Grants Bid to Substitute Plaintiffs
TERRAPIN ENERGY: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
TESCO CORPORATION: Arbitrators Dismissed Employees' Claims
TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Appeal Ongoing

TEXAS: Inmates' Amended Class Certification Bid Okayed
TREMCO INC: Slippery Rock Must Amend Class Suit, Court Says
TRI BORO: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TRUECAR INC: Still Defends NY Lanham Act Litigation
TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Federal Securities Litigation Ongoing

TRUECAR INC: Initial Status Conference in "Rose" Case Rescheduled
TVC OPUS I: Settlement in "Siegal" Suit Has Preliminarily Okay
U.S. WELL SERVICES: "Decker" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for January 2017 in "Morgate" Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Ontario Class Suit Remains Pending

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over 2.0L TSI Engines Tensioner Defect
WASHINGTON EMPLOYEES CREDIT: Court Narrows "Wodja" Suit
WEB.COM GROUP: Calif. Class Action Dismissed
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Defending Against "Roberts" Case in N.Y.
WILLIS TOWERS: Plaintiffs Seek $1.7 Million in Attorneys' Fees

WILLIS TOWERS: Inks Settlement Over Stanford Litigation
WISCONSIN: Court Keeps Order Dismissing Suit v. Corrections Dept.
WORLD WRESTLING: Dispositive Motions Due Aug. 1 in Singleton Case
WORLD WRESTLING: No Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of "Ganues" Case
WU'S PANDA: "Landa" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA

YAHOO! INC: Motion to Dismiss "Buch" Lawsuit Pending


                            *********


1906 COLLINS: "Inestroza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN INESTROZA, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. 1906 COLLINS, LLC d/b/a Baoli Vita, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-22110-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2016), seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, while employed by Baoli, INESTROZA
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week (except for some
weeks in 2015 and in 2016) without being compensated at a rate of
not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he
was employed.

1906 Collins serves sushi & wine in a clubby setting with garden
patio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          Andres Rivera-Ortiz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
                  andres@saenzanderson.com


ACE AMERICAN: "Morgan" Sues Over Additional Premiums
----------------------------------------------------
Stephen Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ace American Insurance Company, a
Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00705-BJD-
MCR (M.D. Fla., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages,
restitution and injunctive relief pursuant to the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Defendant is accused of fraudulent, deceptive, and unconscionable
collection of additional charges above and beyond the advertised
and contractual premium for optional insurance coverage sold with
car rentals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
     NORMAND LAW PLLC
     62 W. Colonial St., Suite 209
     Orlando FL 32814
     Tel: 407-603-6031
     Email: firm@ednormand.com
            ed@ednormand.com


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Motion to Dismiss "Gauquie" Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany Molecular Research, 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's
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains pending.

On November 12, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit, John
Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-
6637, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  The complaint alleges claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's
August 5, 2014 announcement of its financial results for the
second quarter of 2014, including that the OsoBio New Mexico
facility experienced a power interruption in July 2014, which
would have a material impact on the Company's results.  The
complaint alleges that the price of the Company's stock was
artificially inflated between August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014,
and seeks certification as a class action, unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint was amended
on March 31, 2015 to request certification of a class of investors
during the period between August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014. On
October 2, 2015, the Company submitted a motion to dismiss the
complaint, as amended.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: "United Food" Files Anti-trust Suit
-------------------------------------------------
United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health And
Welfare Trust, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Allergan PLC, Actavis, PLC, Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02810-CMR
(E.D. Pa., June 8, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
all other relief available under federal antitrust laws, state
antitrust laws, and state consumer protection laws.

The action accuses Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline.
Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided
reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants at
supracompetitive prices.

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

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

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

Allergan PLC is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company
into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care,
urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and
infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.

Actavis plc is a pharmaceutical corporation with its global
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrative
headquarters in New Jersey.

Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical
company based in the Netherlands.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
      Joyce Chang, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577

          - and -

      Steven L. Stemerman, Esq.
      Sarah Grossman-Swenson, Esq.
      DAVIS COWELL AND BOWE LLP
      595 Market St., Suite 800
      San Francisco, CA 94015
      Tel: (415) 597-7200
      Fax: (415) 597-7201
      Email: stem@debsf.com
             sgs@debsf.com


AMERICAN EQUITY: Pegs Litigation Liability at $11.1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company 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 estimated litigation liability in a class action lawsuit at
March 31, 2016 is $11.1 million.

The Company said, "We were a defendant in a purported class
action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Western Division and
Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central
District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and
Sales Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los
Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices
and similar claims."

"The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
us. On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement and stipulated to certification of the case as a class
action for settlement purposes only. Notice of the terms of the
settlement was mailed to the members of the class on October 7,
2013 and settlement claim forms were due from members of the class
on or before December 6, 2013.

"On January 27, 2014, a hearing was held regarding the fairness of
the settlement. On January 29, 2014, the District Court signed a
final order approving the settlement and finding the settlement is
fair and represents a complete resolution of all claims asserted
on behalf of the class. On January 30, 2014, a final judgment was
entered dismissing the case on the merits and with prejudice.

"On February 28, 2014, a member of the class filed an appeal of
the District Court's approval of the terms of the settlement
agreement with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On February 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's approval of
attorneys' fees and its approval of the settlement agreement. On
March 2, 2016, the same class member filed a petition for panel
rehearing and rehearing en banc. On April 6, 2016, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the petition
for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. On April 15, 2016, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a
mandate, returning the matter to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.

"The estimated litigation liability at March 31, 2016 is $11.1
million. While review of the claim forms has been stayed due to
the appeal and it is difficult to predict the amount of the
liabilities that will ultimately result from the completion of the
claims process, the $11.1 million litigation liability represents
our best estimate of probable loss with respect to this
litigation. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the
matter described above, there can be no assurance that such
litigation, or any other pending or future litigation, will not
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, or results of operations."


AMERICAN FAMILY: Ruling From N.D. Ill. in "Krug" Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Daniel Krug filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit titled Daniel Krug v. American Family Mutual
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-04532, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related disputes.

The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Krug v. American Family
Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 16-2491, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

Defendant-Appellee American Family Mutual Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Heather Harrison, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          311 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212-6500
          E-mail: heather.harrison@faegrebd.com


AMOUN INC: "Soriano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Celso Soriano, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amoun Inc. and Saleh Zonfol, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04257-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2016), seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

Amoun Inc. operates as Amoun Mediterranean Kitchen & Lounge, a
Mediterranean restaurant owned by Saleh Zonfol located at 406 E.
73rd Street, New York, New York 10021, where Soriano was employed
as a delivery worker.

Soriano regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Tel: (212) 317-1200


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Heard Appeal
----------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, 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 Second
Circuit Court of Appeals has heard plaintiffs' appeal of a class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "We and certain of our officers were defendants
in related putative securities class action lawsuits filed in
February 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purported to
represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between
February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013. On April 24, 2014, the
court issued an order consolidating the related actions,
appointing lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of co-lead
counsel. On September 4, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and sought damages in an
unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief. The lead
plaintiffs asserted the Section 11 claim on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased our Series A preferred stock in or
traceable to our public offering on June 5, 2013, and did not sell
those shares of Series A preferred stock prior to December 12,
2013. On October 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which was granted with prejudice
on September 29, 2015. On October 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal, which appeal was heard by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals on April 18, 2016. We believe the allegations in
this action to be unfounded and will vigorously pursue our
defenses; however, we cannot reasonably estimate the potential
range of loss, if any."


ARKANSAS: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Gerke" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lisa White Hardwick of the Missouri Court of Appeals
affirmed a judgment dismissing a class action petition in the case
captioned, JONATHAN GERKE, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF KANSAS
CITY, MISSOURI, et al., Respondents, Case No. WD78991 (Mo. App.).

Jonathan Gerke, Jarid Ward, Julie Kenny, and Kimberly Guardado
(Appellants) asserted that they were bringing the action on behalf
of themselves and a class of "All Missouri residents, currently
residing in the Missouri counties of Jackson, Johnson, Cass, Clay,
or Platte, who, while not charged with and convicted of a
municipal violation, the penalty for which was the assessment of a
warrant fee and/or failure to appear fee, paid a warrant fee
and/or a failure to appear fee to a Municipal Defendant during the
period from January 1, 2005 to the date the Court certifies this
Class Action under Supreme Court Rule 52.08.  Excluded from the
Class is the judge to whom this case is assigned, the putative
class attorneys, the Municipal Defendants' elected officials and
representatives, all those who validly and timely opt-out of the
certified class, and all those persons who have lawsuits pending
against, or who have settled their claims against the Municipal
Defendants for the same or similar claims as set forth herein."
They alleged that the City of Kansas City, the City of Grandview,
the City of Lee's Summit, the City of Raytown, the City of
Independence, the City of Grain Valley, the City of Buckner, the
City of Blue Springs, the City of Greenwood, the City of Lone
Jack, the City of Lake Lotawana, the City of Oak Grove, and the
City of Lake Tapawingo (the Cities) were municipal corporations
that assessed and collected a warrant fee or failure to appear fee
for an individual's failure to appear on his or her municipal
court date. The amount of this fee varied between the Cities and
ranged from $25 up to $149.50. Appellants alleged that each of
them paid such a fee.

Appellants sought relief under several theories. In Count I, they
asked for a judgment declaring (1) whether the assessment and/or
collection of the unauthorized fees was in violation of Missouri
law; (2) whether the Cities had the authority to assess and
collect the unauthorized fees; and (3) whether Appellants and the
putative class members were entitled to recover the unauthorized
fees that they paid. In Counts II and III, Appellants sought
repayment of the unauthorized fees under theories of unjust
enrichment and money had and received.

On appeal, Appellants contend their petition stated claims for
declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, and money had and
received based upon their having paid an illegal warrant fee
and/or a failure to appear fee to the Cities and, furthermore,
that the claims were not barred by the affirmative defenses of
estoppel and waiver.

In her Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/hTNLk1
from Leagle.com, Judge Hardwick found that Appellants failed to
plead all of the facts necessary to demonstrate their right to
declaratory relief and that the lower court properly dismissed the
claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received.


ASTA FUNDING: Parties Continue to Discuss Global Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Asta Funding, 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 parties in a class
action lawsuit are continuing to discuss a global settlement.

In June 2015, a punitive class action complaint was filed against
the Company, and one of its third-party law firm servicers,
alleging violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice
Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO")
and state law arising from debt collection activities and default
judgments obtained against certain debtors.

The Company filed a motion to strike the class action allegations
and compel arbitration or, to the extent the court declines to
order arbitration, to dismiss the RICO claims. On or about March
31, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion. The Company filed
an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. A mediation session was held in July 2015, at which the
Company agreed to settle the action on an individual basis for a
payment of $13,000 to each named plaintiff, for a total payment of
$39,000. Payment was made on or about July 24, 2015. The third-
party law firm servicer has not yet settled and remains a
defendant in the case.

The plaintiffs' attorneys advised that they are contemplating the
filing of another punitive class action complaint against the
Company alleging substantially the same claims as those that were
asserted in this matter. In anticipation of such an eventuality,
the Company agreed to non-binding mediation in order to reach a
global settlement with other putative class members, which would
avert the possibility of further individual or class actions with
respect to the affected accounts. To date, the parties have
attended two mediation sessions and are continuing to discuss a
global settlement. In connection with such discussions, the
current settlement demand from plaintiffs is $4 million and the
current counteroffer from the Company and its third-party law firm
servicer is $3.875 million (which would be split equally between
the Company and the law firm servicer). The Company and law firm
servicer have also offered, as part of the current counteroffer,
to cease collection activity on the affected accounts.

Accordingly, the Company has set up a reserve for settlement costs
of $2.0 million during the three months ended March 31, 2016,
which has been included in general and administrative expenses in
the Company's consolidated statement of operations.

Asta Funding, Inc., together with its wholly owned significant
operating subsidiaries Palisades Collection LLC, Palisades
Acquisition XVI, LLC ("Palisades XVI"), VATIV Recovery Solutions
LLC ("VATIV"), ASFI Pegasus Holdings, LLC ("APH"), Fund Pegasus,
LLC ("Fund Pegasus"), GAR Disability Advocates, LLC ("GAR
Disability Advocates"), CBC Settlement Funding, LLC ("CBC") and
other subsidiaries, not all wholly owned, is engaged in several
business segments in the financial services industry including
structured settlements through its wholly owned subsidiary CBC,
funding of personal injury claims, through its 80% owned
subsidiary Pegasus Funding, LLC ("Pegasus"), social security and
disability advocates through its wholly owned subsidiary GAR
Disability Advocates , LLC and the business of purchasing,
managing for its own account and servicing distressed consumer
receivables, including charged off receivables, and semi-
performing receivables.


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Opposed Motion to Vacate Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, 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 has
opposed lead plaintiffs' motion to vacate and reconsider the
district court's judgment.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain of its former officers and members of its board of
directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer
and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May
9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May
31, 2013.

On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the
complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint
was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to
be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. The amended
complaint generally alleged that the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the
Company's TIVO-1 study in an effort to lead investors to believe
that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. The lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

The consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice
on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second
amended complaint bringing similar allegations.  The Company moved
to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing and oral
argument, the court ruled in the Company's favor and dismissed the
second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015.

The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  They have
also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court's
judgment, which we have opposed.  The Company denies any
allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that
the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance
will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment
or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss at this time.

Aveo is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing a broad
portfolio of targeted therapeutics for oncology and other areas of
unmet medical need.


BANCO BRADESCO: Violated Securities Laws, "Bryan" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BRYAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. BANCO BRADESCO S.A., LUIZ CARLOS
TRABUCO CAPPI, ALEXANDRE DA SILVA GLšHER, and JULIO DE SIQUEIRA
CARVALHO DE ARAUJO, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:16-cv-04155
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

     A. Determining that the instant action may be maintained as a
class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
certifying Plaintiff as the Class representative;

     B. Requiring Defendants to pay damages sustained by Plaintiff
and the Class by reason of the alleged acts and transactions;

     C. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, as well as their reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs; and

     D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and proper.

Banco Bradesco provides banking and financial products and
services to individuals, companies, and corporations and
institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


BANCORP INC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Fletcher" Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Bancorp, 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 ruling on the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
is pending.

On July 17, 2014, a class action securities complaint captioned
Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.   A
consolidated version of that class action complaint was filed
before the same court on January 23, 2015 on behalf of Lead
Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System under the caption of In Re The
Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On October 26, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint against Bancorp, Betsy Z. Cohen, Paul Frenkiel, Frank M.
Mastrangelo and Jeremy Kuiper, which alleges that during a class
period beginning January 26, 2011 through June 26, 2015, the
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that (i) Bancorp had wrongfully extended
and modified problem loans and under-reserved for loan losses due
to adverse loans, (ii) Bancorp's operations and credit practices
were in violation of the BSA, and (iii) as a result, Bancorp's
financial statements, press releases and public statements were
materially false and misleading during the relevant period. The
amended consolidated complaint further alleges that, as a result,
the price of Bancorp's common stock was artificially inflated and
fell once the defendants' misstatements and omissions were
revealed, causing damage to the plaintiffs and the other members
of the class.  The complaint asks for an unspecified amount of
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees. This litigation is in its preliminary stages.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 23, 2015.  Oral argument on the defendants'
motion was held on January 29, 2016 and a court ruling on the
motion is pending.

"We have been advised by our counsel in the matter that reasonably
possible losses cannot be estimated.  We believe that the
complaint is without merit and we intend to defend vigorously,"
the Company said.


BARCLAYS BANK: Kessler Topaz & Robbins Geller to Lead Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Crotty of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted the motion for class
certification, appointed Askelson as class representative and
Kessler Topaz and Robbins Geller as co-class counsel in the case
captioned, In re BARCLAYS BANK PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
09 Civ. 1989 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.).

In early 2009, purchasers from the four offerings filed several
class action complaints alleging Defendants made material
misrepresentations in the offering materials that, when later
disclosed, resulted in the decline in the shares' value, in
violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.
One such suit, brought by Beverly Pellegrini on April 8, 2009,
dealt with the Series 5 offering. Pellegrini v. Barclays Bank Plc,
09 cv 3608. In December 2009, the Court consolidated the cases,
including the Pellegrini case, and appointed Marshall Freidus,
Stewart Thompson and Dora Mahboubi as lead plaintiffs.

On February 12, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint (CAC). The CAC includes named plaintiff Martin
Ettin, who allegedly acquired Series 5 shares "issued pursuant or
traceable to" the April 8, 2008 offering. The CAC alleges that the
offering materials contained materially false and misleading
statements because Barclays (i) failed to timely and adequately
disclose and write down its exposure to risky credit market
assets; (ii) failed to comply with applicable accounting standards
and SEC requirements; and (iii) misleadingly assured investors
that Barclays' extensive risk management practices helped it avoid
such credit market risks. On January 5, 2011, the Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss the CAC.

In the motion, Dennis Askelson -- the lone remaining lead
plaintiff in the protracted litigation -- moves pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 to certify a class of all purchasers in the April 8,
2008 public offering of Series 5 American Depositary Shares
("ADS") by Barclays Bank Plc.

Defendants object on grounds that (i) Askelson lacks Article III
standing; (ii) Askelson is not an adequate class representative;
and (iii) if certified, the class period should end no later than
August 7, 2008.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/klNH2w from Leagle.com, Judge Crotty held that (i)
Askelson has Article III standing; (ii) the Rule 23 requirements
(including adequacy) are satisfied; and (iii) narrowing the class
period at this time is not appropriate. The Court appointed
Askelson to represent the class, and Kessler Topaz and Robbins
Geller as co-class counsel. The parties are directed to appear at
a status conference on July 27, 2016 at 11:15 a.m.

Marshall Freidus, et al. are represented by Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
-- andrewb@rgrdlaw.com -- Eric I. Niehaus, Esq. --
ericn@rgrdlaw.com -- Lucas F. Olts, Esq. -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com --
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Christopher
D. Stewart, Esq. -- cstewart@rgrdlaw.com -- Darren J. Robbins,
Esq. -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com  -- and David C. Walton, Esq. --
davew@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Andrew L.
Zivitz, Esq. -- azivitz@ktmc.com -- Margaret E. Onasch, Esq. --
monasch@ktmc.com -- Sharan Nirmul, Esq. -- snirmul@ktmc.com -- and
Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. -- jdancona@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Barclays Bank PLC, et al. are represented by David Harold Braff,
Esq. -- braffd@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Alain Peller, Esq. --
pellerm@sullcrom.com -- Menachem David Possick, Esq. --
possickm@sullcrom.com -- Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr., Esq. --
tomainom@sullcrom.com -- Thomas Charles White, Esq. --
whitet@sullcrom.com -- and Yavar Bathaee, Esq. --
bathaeey@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP

Barclays Capital Securities Limited, et al. are represented by Jay
B. Kasner, Esq. -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- and Scott D. Musoff,
Esq. -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER
& FLOM LLP


BARCLAYS PLC: Appeals Ruling From "Strougo" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC, Robert Diamond, Antony Jenkins, Barclays Capital
Inc. and William White filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Strougo v. Barclays PLC, Case No. 14-cv-
5797, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The Plaintiffs assert violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The appellate case is captioned as Strougo v. Barclays PLC, Case
No. 16-1912, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Joseph Waggoner is represented by:

          Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Tamar Weinrib, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: taweinrib@pomlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Mohit Sahni is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Tamar Weinrib, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  taweinrib@pomlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Barbara Strougo is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Barclays PLC, Robert Diamond, Antony
Jenkins, Barclays Capital Inc. and William White are represented
by:

          Jeffrey Thomas Scott, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-3082
          E-mail: scottj@sullcrom.com


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Faces Depositors' Class Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, 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 and
the Bank were served on April 28, 2016, with a complaint filed in
the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts,
Springfield Division. The complaint claims to have been filed on
behalf of a purported class of the Bank's depositors, and alleges
violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain
regulations thereunder, among other matters. The complaint seeks,
in part, compensatory, consequential, and statutory damages. The
Company and the Bank deny the allegations contained in the
complaint and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


BIG TEN: Sued in Ill. Over Concealing Football Players Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG TEN CONFERENCE and THE
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05986 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2016), seeks
to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendants' reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of Ohio State
student athletes.

According to the complaint, during the course of a college
football season, athletes can receive more than 1,000 impacts
greater than 10g's (gravitational force) and, worse yet; the
majority of football related hits to the head exceed 20g's.  Over
time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to
repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long
term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression,
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), Parkinson's disease, and
other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last
game, they are left with a series of neurological events that
could slowly strangle and choke their brains. Unfortunately, for
decades, Defendants Big Ten and the NCAA knew about the
debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related
injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic
brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college
football, but actively concealed this information to protect the
very profitable business of "amateur" college football.

Mr. Griffin, individually and on behalf of the Class, asks the
Court to:

     A. Certify this case as a class action on behalf of the Class
defined above, appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative, and
appoint his counsel as Class Counsel;

     B. Declare that Defendants' actions, as set out above,
constitute negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract,
and unjust enrichment;

     C. Award all economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages caused by Defendants' conduct,
including without limitation damages for past, present, and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, and other damages. Further,
Plaintiff and the Class will likely incur future damages caused by
Defendant' misconduct;

     D. Award Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable litigation
expenses and attorneys' fees;

     E. Award Plaintiff and the Class pre- and post-judgment
interest, to the extent allowable;

     F. Enter injunctive and/or declaratory relief as is necessary
to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Class; and

     G. Award such other and further relief as equity and justice
may require.

The Big Ten Conference, formerly Western Conference and Big Nine
Conference, is the oldest Division I collegiate athletic
conference in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                    rbalabanian@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (844) 456 4823
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


BIG TEN: "Strinko" Sues Over Football Health Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
Steve Strinko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Big Ten Conference and the National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
05988 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2016), seeks economic, monetary, actual,
consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present
and future medical expenses, other out-of-pocket expenses, lost
time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney
fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting
from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party
express contract and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to warn collegiate
players of the health hazards of playing football.

Big Ten is a collegiate athletic conference with its principal
office located at 5440 Park Place, Rosemont, Illinois 60018, and
with member institutions in over ten states, including Illinois.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46206.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

          - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Must Defend Against "Rogers" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Stay in the case
captioned, DANA ROGERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK
(USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-4016-TWT (N.D. Ga.).

The Plaintiffs, Dana Rogers, Pamela Martin, and Sandra Roberts,
bring this putative class action against the Defendant, Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A. The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant
made unwanted phone calls to their cell phone numbers in
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on
behalf of themselves and the class of all others similarly
situated.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' complaint should be
dismissed for lack of standing. Article III standing requires an
actual or imminent injury that is concrete and particularized,
fairly traceable to the challenged action, and redressable by a
favorable ruling. In the alternative, the Defendant moves to stay
the matter pending the outcome of a Supreme Court decision and a
decision by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 7, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/pXjf6X from Leagle.com, Judge Thrash, Jr. concluded
that the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support
standing because the Plaintiffs allege that the calls were made to
their personal cell phone numbers, they have suffered
particularized injuries because their cell phone lines were
unavailable for legitimate use during the unwanted calls. As to
the motion to stay, the Court found that judicial economy does not
warrant a stay.

Dana Rogers, Pamela Martin and Sandra Roberts are represented by
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. -- aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD
DAVIDSON & RADBIL, PLLC -- and  Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq. --
mehrlich@counselpress.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH,
LLC

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., is represented by Aaron Daniel Van
Oort, Esq. -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Eileen M. Hunter, Esq.
-- eileen.hunter@FaegreBD.com -- and Erin Leigh Hoffman, Esq. --
erin.hoffman@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP -- and
Andrew G. Phillips, Esq. -- aphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE
WOODS LLP


CENERGY INTL: "Wright" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Wright, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Cenergy International Services, LLC, Defendant, Case
4:2016-cv-00580 (M.D. Pa., April 5, 2016), has been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
June 8, 2016, Case No. 4:16-cv-01627.

Defendant is a corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas,
providing various services at natural gas drilling sites.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491
      Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Jean E. Novak, Esq.
      STRASSBURGER MCKENNA GUTNICK & GEFSKY
      444 Liberty Avenue, Suite 2200
      Pittsburgh PA 15222
      Tel: 412-281-5423
      Email: jnovak@smgglaw.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Novoa" Settlement Has Final Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
final approval of the class action settlement and attorneys' fees
and costs, and plaintiffs' enhancement awards in the case
captioned, LUIS NOVOA, MICHAEL ALVAREZ, BRIAN BELOTE-DINFORD, and
TREVOR GRANT, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:13-cv-01302-
BAM (E.D. Cal.).

On June 3, 2016, Plaintiffs move for (1) Final Judgment and Order
Approving Class Action Settlement; and for (2) Approval of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Plaintiffs' Enhancement Awards.

In his Memorandum and Order dated June 6, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/vRK5mQ from Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe found that
the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and approved
final certification of a class of "All individuals who worked for
Charter Communications, LLC in California, who received a paycheck
at any time between July 5, 2012 and March 24, 2013 for performing
work in the field, including as Broadband Technicians, Broadband
Installers, Installation Technicians, Repair Technicians, Service
Technicians, System Technicians, Field Auditors, or Quality
Assurance Inspectors."

The Court found that the services provided by CPT Group, Inc. as
the Settlement Administrator were for the benefit of the Class,
and the cost of $14,000 is fair, reasonable, and appropriate for
reimbursement.

The Markham Law Firm, Kershaw Cook & Talley, Aequitas Law Group
and United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel are awarded with
attorneys' fees of $130,000 and litigation fees of $17,504.90.

The Court approved Service Awards in the amount of $5,000 to
Plaintiff Novoa, and $2,500 to Plaintiff Alvarez, $2,500 to
Plaintiff Belote-Dinford and $2,500 to Plaintiff Grant.

Luis Novoa is represented by Autumn E. Love, Esq. --
al@rossandsilverman.com -- Joseph Cho, Esq. --
jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com -- and -- Ronald H. Bae, Esq. --
rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP, Stuart C.
Talley, Esq. -- stuart@kctlegal.com -- KERSHAW CUTTER & RATINOFF,
LLP, Walter L. Haines, Esq. -- walter@whaines.com -- UNITED
EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC -- and -- David Roger Markham, Esq. --
dmarkham@markham-law.com -- THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM

Michael Alvarez, Brian Belote-Dinford and Trevor Grant are
represented by David Roger Markham, Esq. -- dmarkham@markham-
law.com -- and -- Peggy J. Reali, Esq. -- preali@markham-law.com -
- THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM, Walter L. Haines, Esq. --
walter@whaines.com -- UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC, Joseph Cho,
Esq. -- jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com -- and Ronald H. Bae, Esq. --
rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP -- and Stuart
C. Talley, Esq. -- stuart@kctlegal.com -- KERSHAW CUTTER &
RATINOFF, LLP

Charter Communications, LLC is represented by Thomas R. Kaufman,
Esq. -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- and Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
-- pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
HAMPTON, LLP -- and Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq. --
vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP


CHIASMA INC: Made False Disclosure Over Mycapssa Methodology
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN J. GERNETH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHIASMA, INC., MARK W.
LEUCHTENBERGER, and MARK J. FITZPATRICK, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-11082 (D. Mass., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations relating to
false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued
in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or
about July 15, 2015 (IPO) and/or on the open market between July
15, 2015 and April 17, 2016, pursuant to the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company's lead product candidate is oral octreotide, or
Mycapssa, for the treatment of acromegaly, a condition that
results in the body's production of excess growth hormone. As of
June 2015, prior to Chiasma's IPO, the Company had completed a
multinational Phase 3 clinical trial of Mycapssa and submitted a
new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
seeking approval for marketing and sale of Mycapssa.

Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

     (i) Chiasma's Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for Mycapssa
was not sufficient to demonstrate efficacy and secure FDA
approval;

     (ii) Chiasma's supervision of its suppliers was not
sufficient to prevent deficiencies that would delay FDA approval
of Mycapssa; and

     (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Chiasma's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Chiasma, a late-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral forms of therapies for
patients suffering from orphan diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Steven Harte, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398 5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507 6020
          E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com
                  Steven@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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


CHINA XD: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------
China Xd Plastics Company Limited 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 plaintiffs
have moved the Court for leave to amend the class action
complaint.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These actions, which allege
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16,
2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD)
and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-
5359 (GBD), respectively.

On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs.  On February 17, 2015, the lead
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf
of a class of all persons other than the defendants who purchased
the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between
March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014, both dates inclusive.
Specifically, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Company and two
of its officers made false or misleading statements and/or omitted
material facts in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also assert that the individual
defendants are liable because they allegedly controlled the
Company during the time the allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions were made.  The lead plaintiffs seek
damages in unspecified amounts.

On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint. On March 23, 2016, the Court entered an
Opinion and Order dismissing the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint without prejudice.

On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs moved the Court for leave to amend the
Complaint.  Management believes the proposed amendment is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.


CHUNG CHUN: "Tobias" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALBERTO RIVAS TOBIAS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. CHUNG CHUN SOON DAE
INC. d/b/a BYUNGCHUN SOONDAE and KANG WON LEE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02955-WFK-VMS (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2016), seeks to
recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wage, (2) unpaid
overtime compensation, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, throughout his employment with
Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked 12 hours per day, from
10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., for 6 days per week. The Plaintiff was
required to work without any lunch break on a daily basis and he
was not required to clock in or out.

Defendants operate "Byungchun Soondae" restaurant through CHUNG
CHUN SOON DAE INC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLEGE NETWORK: Cal. Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Judith McConnell of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed the order denying The College Network's motion to
compel arbitration in the case captioned, BERNADETTE MAGNO et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. THE COLLEGE NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant, Case No. D067687 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiffs Bernadette Magno, Rosanna Garcia, and Sheree Rudio
brought a consumer fraud and breach of contract action against The
College Network, Inc. (TCN). Plaintiffs sued TCN in February 2014,
seeking equitable and monetary relief. Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint, filed in October 2014, asserted statutory claims under
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, Sections 1750 et seq.)
and Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Sections 17200 et
seq.) and common law misrepresentation and breach of contract
claims. Plaintiffs alleged that in 2012, following an
investigation into the clinical component of the program at CSU,
ISU had suspended enrollment into its LVN to B.S. in nursing
program. Plaintiffs alleged TCN and other defendants concealed
this information and misrepresented that enrolling in the program
would enable Plaintiffs to qualify for entrance into ISU's nursing
program. Plaintiffs alleged each of them had paid program deposits
and loan payments based on these representations. Plaintiffs
requested compensatory damages and injunctive, declaratory, and
equitable relief.

In December 2014, TCN moved to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs
opposed TCN's motion, arguing the arbitration provision in the
purchase agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.
The trial court issued a tentative ruling prior to the hearing,
granting TCN's motion to compel arbitration. However, on December
31, 2014, following oral argument, the court denied TCN's motion
to compel, overruling most of TCN's evidentiary objections and
finding the arbitration provision procedurally and substantively
unconscionable.

On appeal, TCN argues the arbitration provision in Plaintiffs'
purchase agreements is valid and enforceable and contends the
trial court erred when it ruled the provision unconscionable.
Alternatively, TCN argues that if the forum selection clause is
unconscionable, the court abused its discretion in voiding the
arbitration provision altogether rather than severing the
objectionable provisions and enforcing the remainder.

In his Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/7Ap6ZU
from Leagle.com, Judge McConnell concluded the trial court
correctly determined the arbitration provision to be procedurally
and substantively unconscionable; the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in voiding the provision in its entirety.

The College Network is represented by Adam T. Hoover, Esq. --
adhoover@reichradcliffe.com -- and Richard J. Radcliffe, Esq.
-- rjr@reichradcliffe.com -- REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER

Bernadette Magno, et al. are represented by Hannah J. Bingham,
Esq. -- Hannah@BinghamLawOffices.com -- LAW OFFICES OF HANNAH J.
BINGHAM


CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Convergent
Healthcare Recoveries, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint in the case captioned, DAVID B. AHR, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE
RECOVERIES, INC., and CP MEDICAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-
CV-1464-J-34JBT (M.D. Fla.).

On September 9, 2015, Ahr filed the action on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated against Convergent and CP
Medical. In the Complaint, Ahr asserted one count alleging that
both Convergent and CP Medical had committed numerous violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et
seq. (FDCPA) "by sending the 8/17/15 Letter to Ahr to collect the
alleged Flagler obligation," and by sending letters containing
"identical material terms" to members of the purported classes.

On November 6, 2015, Convergent filed its Motion to Dismiss and
Transfer Venue. See generally Motion to Dismiss and Transfer
Venue. In the portions of the Motion to Dismiss and Transfer Venue
in which Convergent requested dismissal, Convergent argued both
that Ahr did "not allege that Convergent misidentified itself, as
required to state a claim under Sec. 1692e(14)" and that the
Complaint was a shotgun pleading.  On November 16, 2015, CP
Medical filed a separate motion to dismiss the claims against it,
arguing that Ahr "did not allege CP Medical sent the letter or had
any input into the content of the letter," but rather, "apparently
sought to hold CP Medical vicariously liable for Convergent's
alleged conduct."

In her Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/A4nRip
from Leagle.com, Judge Howard said she is unwilling to find Ahr's
claim wholly lacking in merit due to the absence of legal
authority at the early stage of the proceedings.

David B. Ahr is represented by Christopher B. Hall, Esq. --
chall@hallandlampros.com -- HALL & LAMPROS -- and -- Tracy Lynne
Markham, Esq. -- avhnfl@msn.com -- AVOLIO & HANLON, PC

Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. is represented by Barbara
Fernandez, Esq. -- bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com -- David P. Hartnett,
Esq. -- wharnett@hinshawlaw.com -- and -- West Allan Holden, Esq.
-- wholden@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP

CP Medical, LLC is represented by Dayle Marie Van Hoose, Esq. --
dvanhoose@sessions.legal -- and -- Rachel A. Morris, Esq. --
rmorris@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC


CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Has Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gray H. Miller of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification in the case captioned, PHILIP E.
ASHCRAFT and CHRISTOPHER D. GANDARA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORE LABORATORIES, LP,
et al., Defendants, Case No. H-16-823 (S.D. Tex.).

Defendant Core Laboratories, LP provides reservoir management
services to the petroleum industry. Defendant ProTechnics, a
division of Core Laboratories, specializes in providing imaging
analysis and diagnostics.

On December 6, 2010, ProTechnics hired Philip E. Ashcraft as a
Field Service Representative. At the time Plaintiffs filed the
pending motion, Ashcraft was still employed in this capacity. On
July 18, 2012, ProTechnics hired Christopher D. Gandara as a Field
Service Representative. Gandara's employment was terminated on
March 20, 2015.

At the time Plaintiffs began working for Protechnics, they were
required to work substantial overtime hours but were paid only a
salary and a bonus without overtime compensation. On March 16,
2015, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of
West Virginia against Protechnics, Core Laboratories, and John
Kalika seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit both
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek conditional certification for a
class of  "All employees of ProTechnics, a division of Core
Laboratories, LP, working from ProTechnics's facility located in
Parkersburg, West Virginia as Field Service Representatives or
performing the duties of Field Service Representatives from March
16, 2012[,] until November 8, 2014. "

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 14, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/ZEq3Fu from Leagle.com, Judge Miller found that
Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of class certification
and certified the proposed class.

Philip E. Ashcraft and Christopher D. Gandara are represented by:

Maria W. Hughes, Esq.
Mark Goldner, Esq.
HUGHES & GOLDNER
10 Hale St
Charleston, WV 25301
Tel: (304)400-4816

Core Laboratories LP is represented by Ethel J. Johnson, Esq. --
ethel.johnson@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS; and Richard F.
Shearer, Esq. -- rshearer@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Taylor Files Appeal From "Buckley" Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff June Taylor filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Randall Buckley, et al. v. Countrywide
Home Loans Incorporated, Case No. 2:08-cv-01200-RSM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 25, 2015,
District Court Judge Ricardo S. Martinez denied on May 20, 2015, a
renewed motion for class certification finding that the motion was
not timely.  The Order is available at http://bit.ly/1Jhkk8Efrom
Leagle.com.

The Case was filed under the Washington Consumer Protection Act
alleging that Countrywide changed the terms of a home mortgage
refinance transaction without informing the Plaintiff before they
closed the deal.

The appellate case is captioned as Randall Buckley, et al v.
Countrywide Home Loans Incorporated, Case No. 16-35494, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant June Taylor is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com

Defendant-Appellee Countrywide Home Loans Incorporated is
represented by:

          Brooks Russell Brown, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 426-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 623-1673
          E-mail: bbrown@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Tim J. Filer, Esq.
          FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
          1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 447-2904
          Facsimile: (206) 749-1939
          E-mail: tim.filer@foster.com

               - and -

          Thomas Hefferon, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4000
          E-mail: thefferon@goodwinprocter.com


DAVID BOONE: "Adams" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN ADAMS, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DAVID BOONE OILFIELD CONSULTING & EP ENERGY
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01566 (S.D. Tex.,
June 3, 2016), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed to workers, pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff seeks:

     1. An order allowing this action to proceed as a
representative collective action under the FLSA;

     2. Judgment awarding Plaintiff and the other Putative Class
Members all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses under the FLSA;

     3. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest rate
allowable by law; and

     4. All such other and further relief to which Plaintiff and
the other Putative Class Members may show themselves to be justly
entitled.

David Boone Oilfield Consulting (DBOC) staffed out workers to EP
Energy Corporation. Defendants misclassified these workers as
independent contractors and failed to pay them overtime
compensation as required by federal law. The Plaintiff worked for
Defendants as a "Flowback Operator" and has been employed by
Defendants since approximately May 2014.

DBOC is a staffing company. It provides the energy industry with
specialized energy personnel, including Flowback Operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


DUANE READE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in "Jacob" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York denied Duane Reade's motion
to decertify the class and the collective action in the case
captioned, MANI JACOB, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DUANE READE, INC. and
DUANE READE HOLDINGS INC., Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-0160 (JPO)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs in the case allege that Duane Reade, Inc., and Duane
Reade Holdings failed to compensate assistant store managers
(ASMs) for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York
Labor Law (NYLL). The Court conditionally certified a FLSA
collective action on January 27, 2012, and it certified a NYLL
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on March 20,
2013. In August 2013, the court granted in part a motion for
reconsideration, partially decertifying the class as to damages
but allowing it to proceed as to liability. Defendants appealed,
and on February 10, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the court's
class certification determination by summary order.

In the motion, Duane Reade seeks decertification of both the Rule
23 class and the FLSA collective action.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/w2VZkW from Leagle.com, Judge Oetken held that
fairness and procedural considerations weigh in favor of
certifying the collective action. As with the Rule 23 class, for
most opt-in plaintiffs, "pursuing the litigation individually
would be a hindrance rather than a boon." Further, as the Court
has certified a Rule 23 class, allowing the FLSA collective action
to proceed as well is fair and procedurally efficient.

Mani Jacob and Lesleena Mars are represented by Adam T. Klein,
Esq. -- atk@outtengolden.com -- Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. -
jms@outtengolden.com -- Lewis M. Steel, Esq. --
lmsteel@outtengolden.com -- Michael Joseph Scimone, Esq. --
mjs@outtengolden.com -- Molly Anne Brooks, Esq. --
mab@outtengolden.com -- Paul W. Mollica, Esq. --
pwm@outtengolden.com -- Rachel Megan Bien, Esq. --
rmb@outtengolden.com -- and Sally Jasmine Abrahamson, Esq. --
sja@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP

The Plaintiffs are also represented by:

Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
1100 King St
Port Chester, NY 10573
Tel: (914)934-9200

Ousmane Diop, et al. are represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Esq. -- jms@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN,LLP

Duane Reade, Inc., Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. and Walgreen Co. are
represented by Craig Robert Benson, Esq. -- cbenson@littler.com --
Christine Lee Hogan, Esq. -- clhogan@littler.com -- and Stephen
Andrew Fuchs, Esq. -- sfuchs@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C


DUROLITE INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey grants final certification of
the settlement class and collective action, approves the
settlement agreement, and awards litigation costs and expenses in
the case captioned, LAWRENCE SHEINBERG and GILES HAZEL,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT SORENSEN, et al., Defendant, Case No. 00-
6041 (CCC) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs Lawrence Sheinberg and Giles Hazel are former non-union
employees of Duro-Test, a now-insolvent lighting manufacturer that
owned and operated a manufacturing plant in Cliflon, New Jersey.
Plaintiffs allege that all of Duro-Test's assets were transferred
to Defendant Litronics and, as a result, Duro-Test's plant closed
without any notice to the Duro-Test workers on February 18, 2000.
Plaintiffs contend Defendants (1) failed to pay wages, sales
commissions, and benefits; (2) failed to make health insurance
premium payments and maintain health coverage; and (3) failed to
provide timely notice of the Duro-Test plant closing. Plaintiffs
sue for breach of fiduciary, statutory, and common law duties.

The Named Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals (Plaintiffs) against
Defendants Robert Sorensen (Sorensen), Durolite International,
Inc. (Durolite), and Litetronics International, Inc. (Litetronics)
(Defendants), for paychecks and commission checks they or their
co-workers were due when the Duro-Test Corporation (Duro-Test)
plant in Clifton, New Jersey was closed without notice.

The Court granted preliminary certification of the settlement
class and collective action and preliminary approval of the
settlement on October 23, 2015. The Settlement Classes consist of
273 former non-union employees of Duro-Test. The Settlement
Agreement provides that Defendants will pay a gross settlement
amount of $100,000. The Settlement Amount is inclusive of all
Class Member payments as well as attorneys' costs and expenses.

In the motion, the partied seek final approval of the settlement
agreement and certification of class action.  Stark & Stark, the
current class counsel, seeks $40,000 in attorneys' costs, thereby
leaving a net award of $60,000 to be partitioned between and among
the Class Plaintiffs.

In her Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/giomMf
from Leagle.com, Judge Cecchi held that for the purposes of
settlement only, the members of the FLSA collective action who
submitted a Claim form have satisfied the requirements for FLSA
collective action certification and that the requested award of
costs is reasonable because the class counsel has provided
documentation showing that its costs total $47,645.61.

Lawrence Sheinberg and Giles Hazel are represented by Martin P.
Schrama, Esq. -- mschrama@stark-stark.com -- STARK & STARK, PC

Robert Sorensen et al. are represented by Gerald Krovatin, Esq. --
gkrovatin@krovatin.com -- KROVATIN KLINGEMAN LLC


ELIASEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims v. Owners Barred by Bankruptcy
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted
Defendants' Status Report and Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned, ARLOS MEJIA, JUAN
MARTINEZ-ROJAS, and SEBASTIAN PEREZ, Plaintiffs, v. ELIASEN
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., TODD ELIASEN, MICHELLE ELIASEN, FLORIDA
LANDSCAPE MGT, LLC, and RONALD WEBB, Defendants, Case No. 8:15-CV-
209-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla.).

On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs Arlos Mejia, Juan Martinez-Rojas,
and Sebastian Perez filed a putative class action lawsuit pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act against Defendants Eliasen
Environmental, Inc., Florida Landscape MGT, LLC, Ronald Webb, Todd
Eliasen, and Michelle Eliasen. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Settlement reflecting that they reached an accord with
Defendants Florida Landscape MGT, LLC and Ronald Webb. Pursuant to
the terms of that settlement, each Plaintiff was paid $500.00 and
counsel for Plaintiffs was paid $1,000.00.

At the direction of the Court, the settling parties sought
approval from the Court and the Court approved the settlement.
Thereafter, on June 24, 2015, Michelle Eliasen and Todd Eliasen
filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy explaining that they filed for
protection under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
The Court accordingly stayed and administratively closed the case
as to the bankrupt defendants and directed that the parties file
periodic status reports with respect to the bankruptcy case.

On November 23, 2015, Todd and Michelle Eliasen received their
Chapter 7 discharge and the Eliasens moved for an order dismissing
the action with prejudice and closing the case.

In her Order dated June 6, 2016 available at https://is.gd/JVCaJN
from Leagle.com, Judge Covington found that the claims asserted in
the action against Todd and Michelle Eliasen are barred by the
Chapter 7 discharge.

Arlos Mejia, Juan Martinez-Rojas and Sebastian Perez are
represented by:

Bradley Abraham Tobin, Esq.
TOBIN LAW GROUP, PL
Urban Centre
4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 600
Tampa, FL 33609
Tel: (813) 452-6199

- and -

Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LAW GROUP PA
1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
Tampa, FL 33607

Eliasen Environmental, Inc. is represented by:

Sarah J.M. Smith, Esq.
JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP
911 Chestnut Street
Clearwater, FL 33756
Tel: (727)461-1818

Todd Eliasen and Michelle Eliasen are represented by:

Alberto F. Gomez, Jr., Esq.
Sarah J.M. Smith, Esq.
JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP
911 Chestnut Street
Clearwater, FL 33756
Tel: (727)461-1818


EOS HOLDINGS: "DiGiorgio" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN DIGIORGIO and PHILIP CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly, the Plaintiffs, v. EOS HOLDINGS, INC.,
and COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-11069 (D. Mass., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, EOS requires or permits Plaintiffs to
work in excess of 40 hours per week but fails to credit and
compensate them for all of their overtime hours.

The Defendants are Massachusetts corporations that provide debt
management and resources recovery services at regional call
centers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3261
          Facsimile: (617) 488 2261
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  brant@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Susan H. Stern, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  sstern@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509 2057
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


EVERI HOLDINGS: Class Certification Motion Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings 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 court has not
ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
case, Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al.

The Company is currently involved in one lawsuit related to Everi
Games Holding's former charity bingo operations in the State of
Alabama, which the Company believes is not material from a damages
perspective. The lawsuit is currently pending in federal court and
includes claims related to the alleged illegality of electronic
charity bingo in the State of Alabama.

Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil
action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama.  On June 3, 2010, Everi Games Holding and other
manufacturers were added as defendants. The plaintiffs, who claim
to have been patrons of White Hall, allege that Everi Games
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek
recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played
by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the
complaint under Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs
requested that the court certify the action as a class action.

On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern
Division.

The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The Company continues to vigorously defend this
matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation,
however, the Company is unable to make any prediction as to the
ultimate outcome.


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Appeal Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Galectin Therapeutics 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 Plaintiff's appeal
seeking review of the dismissal order and final judgment is
pending.

Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. The complaints
allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements in
certain press releases and other public statements in violation of
the federal securities laws and seek class certification,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The
Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order
consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any
obligation to respond to the complaints currently on file, and
providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended
complaint after it is filed by a lead plaintiff(s) to be appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants'
motion to transfer the consolidated putative securities class
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff ("Plaintiff'). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on May 8, 2015. The Complaint
asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
October 25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Class
Action Individual Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 through allegedly false or misleading statements in certain
SEC filings, press releases and other public statements. The
Complaint further alleges that the Class Action Individual
Defendants and one of the Company's shareholders face liability
for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant
to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint on June 26, 2015.

On December 30, 2015, the Court dismissed the putative class
action with prejudice and entered a final judgment in favor of the
defendants. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal seeking review
of the dismissal order and final judgment. The appeal has been
docketed and is currently pending.

Galectin Therapeutics Inc. (the "Company") is a clinical stage
biopharmaceutical company that is applying its leadership in
galectin science and drug development to create new therapies for
fibrotic disease and cancer.


GENERAL MOTORS: Marro Appeals Ruling From Teachers Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Donald C. Marro filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit titled New York State Teachers' Retirement System
v. General Motors Company, et al., Case No. 14-cv-11191, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint.

The appellate case is captioned as New York State Teachers'
Retirement System v. General Motors Company, et al., Case No. 16-
1821, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Action was brought by investors alleging, among other things,
that the Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omitting material information
about GM's product warranty and recall liabilities, internal
controls and commitment to safety.

Lead Plaintiff New York State Teachers' Retirement System, on
behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, achieved a settlement
of the Action for $300 million in cash resolving all claims in the
Action.  The Settlement Class consists of: all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired General Motors
Company ("GM") common stock during the period from November 17,
2010 through July 24, 2014, inclusive, and who were damaged
thereby.

Plaintiff-Appellee New York State Teachers' Retirement System is
represented by:

          Sharon Sue Almonrode, Esq.
          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
          James Abram Harrod, Esq.
          Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1538
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: sgraziano@blbglaw.com
                  jim.harrod@blbglaw.com
                  adam@blbglaw.com

Defendants-Appellees General Motors Company, Daniel F. Akerson,
Nicholas S. Cyprus, Christopher P. Liddell, Daniel Ammann, Charles
K. Stevens, III, Mary T. Barra and Thomas S. Timco are represented
by:

          Timothy A. Duffy, Esq.
          Robert J. Kopecky, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: tim.duffy@kirkland.com
                  robert.kopecky@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Raymond Wade Henney, Esq.
          HONIGMAN, MILLER, SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP
          660 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2290
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 465-7410
          Facsimile: (313) 465-7411
          E-mail: rhenney@honigman.com

Defendant-Appellee Gay P. Kent is represented by:

          Michael P. Cooney, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          400 Renaissance Center
          Detroit, MI 48243
          Telephone: (313) 568-6800
          E-mail: mcooney@dykema.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Trapnell, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          39577 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (313) 568-6712
          E-mail: ttrapnell@dykema.com

               - and -

          Guy T. Petrillo, Esq.
          PETRILLO KLEIN AND BOXER LLP
          655 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 370-0331
          E-mail: gpetrillo@pkbllp.com


HELPING HANDS: "Prishlyak" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Olga Prishlyak, on behalf of herself and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Helping Hands
Attendant Services (A Division of Community Home Care Referral
Services, Inc.), Barry Weiss and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02969 (E.D. N.Y., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law; liquidated damages; reasonable attorney fees and costs; and
such other and further relief.

Defendants are in the home healthcare industry where Plaintiff was
a full-time Home Attendant. She claims to be denied overtime pay
and wage statements.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HESKA CORPORATION: Still Defends "Fauley" Suit in N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heska 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 the Company still
defends a class action by Shaun Fauley in Illinois.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed
against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois alleging our transmittal of
unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, as a class action seeking stated damages of the greater
of actual monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation. We
intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter."

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

Heska Corporation and its wholly-owned and majority-owned
subsidiaries sell advanced veterinary diagnostic and other
specialty veterinary products.


HOLY CROSS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Termination of Pension Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORINNE BUTLER and ANDREA FITZSIMMONS, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL ("HCH"), SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM
("SINAI"), WAYNE LERNER, DIANE HOWARD, JOHN R. BALL, M.D, BARBARA
FAHEY, SATYA AHUJA, M.D., CHIA HUANG, M.D., LARRY MARGOLIS,
SIVARAMAPRASAD TUMMALA, M.D., HOWARD BERMAN, GARY J. NIEDERPRUEM,
SHARON ROSSMARK, YOGI AHULUWALIA, M.D., JOHN BENEVIDES, CHARLES
BROWN, DANIEL CANTRELL, ALAN H. CHANNING, JOHN DANAHER, M.D.,
LESLIE DAVIS, MARK J. FRISCH, AIDA GIACHELLO, NEAL GOLDSTEIN,
ALBERT GRACE, JONATHAN JONAS, GARY KELLER, KENNETH A. LUCCIONI,
ROBERT MARKIN, GLORIA MATERRE, BRET MAXWELL, WAYNE PIERCE, MAURICE
SCHWARTZ, ROBERT SHAKNO, BEN SOLDINGER, ALAN SOLOW, ROBERT STEELE,
STEVE TOPEL, TERRY HEAT, and JOHN and JANE DOES, each an
individual, 1-40, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05907 (N.D.
Ill., June 6, 2016), asks the Court for:

     (1) a declaration that their pension plan is an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)-covered plan;

     (2) a declaration that the Plan was not properly terminated
under ERISA and therefore continues to be an ERISA-covered plan;

     (3) an order reforming the Pension Plan, and requiring that
the Pension Plan be funded, administered, and terminated in
compliance with ERISA;

     (4) a declaration that HCH is obligated to comply with the
terms of the Plan and provide each member of the Class the full
amount of benefits provided under the Plan;

     (5) a declaration that Sinai, as the sole corporate member of
HCH, is part of a controlled group that is jointly and severally
liable along with HCH for any unfunded benefits under the Plan;
and

     (6) an order requiring HCH to pay civil penalties to the
Class in the same statutory daily amount for each member of the
Class.

Holy Cross Hospital is one of the largest hospitals in Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Julie G. Reiser, Esq.
          Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
                  myau@cohenmilstein.com
                  jreiser@cohenmilstein.com
                  mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Ron Kilgard, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback, LLP
          Seattle, WA

               - and -

          Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
          DeBofsky & Associates P.C.
          200 W. Madison St., Suite 2670
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 561 4040
          E-mail: mdebofsky@debofsky.com


HOME CARE: "Dillow" Suit Seeks Monetary Relief Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Dillow, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Home Care Network, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00612-TSB (S.D. Ohio, June 6, 2016), seeks appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendant's
willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated
individuals with overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
(OMFWSA).

Home Care employed Ms. Dillow and the putative class members as
home healthcare workers who provided companionship services for
the elderly, ill, or disabled. From January 1, 2015 until about
March 2016, Home Care compensated Ms. Dillow and the putative
class members at "straight time" rather than time-and-a-half for
overtime hours (i.e., hours worked in excess of 40 per week).

Home Care is Ohio and Indiana's comprehensive home care agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Eric Kmetz, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          Easton Town Center
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604 8759
          Facsimile (614) 583 8107
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  www.msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Lore, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. LORE, P.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 782-5291
          Fax: (713) 758-0345
          E-mail: mlore@lorefirm.com


IMMUNOMEDICS, INC: Sued in N.J. Over Securities' Inflated Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA FERGUS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMMUNOMEDICS, INC., CYNTHIA L.
SULLIVAN, PETER P. PFREUNDSCHUH and DAVID GOLDENBERG, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03335-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., June 9, 2016),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

Accord to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to (i) deceive
the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members;
(ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market price of
Immunomedics securities; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other
members of the Class to purchase or otherwise acquire Immunomedics
securities and options at artificially inflated prices.

Immunomedics, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development of monoclonal antibody-based products for the
targeted treatment of cancer, autoimmune, and other diseases.
Among other product candidates, the Company is developing
the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) sacituzumab govitecan IMMU-132
(IMMU-132), which is in Phase II trials for treatment of patients
with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and small-cell and
non-small-cell lung cancers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623 0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, 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 discovery is ongoing
and no trial date has been scheduled in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust
Class Actions.

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by
certain direct purchasers against manufacturers of the brand drug
Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original
complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against
defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the
other generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The
original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only
against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company
and the other generic defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed
a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.  On February 11, 2016, the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to
be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated
or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the Court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaints. Discovery is ongoing. No
trial date has been scheduled.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, 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 discovery is ongoing
and no trial date has been scheduled in the Opana ER Antitrust
Litigation.

From June 2014 to February 2016, 14 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers,
as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer
of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were
filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor
(indirect) purchaser plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the
"Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc.,
HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation
and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.).

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be
bound by the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss
the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs have filed a second
consolidated amended complaint and the Company has moved to
dismiss certain state law claims.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend.
The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended
complaints and the Company has filed its answer.

Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Generic Drug Pricing Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, 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 discovery has not
commenced in the so-called Generic Drug Pricing Class Action.

On March 2, 2016, the International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 30 Benefits Fund filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, in concert
with others, engaged in a conspiracy to fix, maintain, and
stabilize the price of digoxin in violation of federal and state
antitrust law. To date, eight additional putative class action
complaints containing similar allegations have been filed against
the Company. On March 25, 2016, the Tulsa Firefighters Health and
Welfare Trust and the NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund filed
complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. On April 4, 2016, Pipe Trade Services MN
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 25, 2016, Edward
Carpinelli filed a complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 27, 2016,
Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 2, 2016, Nina Diamond
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 5, 2016, UFCW Local 1500
Welfare Fund filed a complaint in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. On May 6, 2016, Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare
Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Discovery in these proceedings
has not commenced.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: 2 AWP Class Suits Ongoing in Philadelphia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, 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 is
defending two AWP class action lawsuits.

On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan
and others similarly situated filed a class action against several
generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company and
others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average
Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs.

The case has since been removed to federal court in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. By
virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the suit
has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of third party
payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain generic
drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action under the laws
of other states in addition to Pennsylvania.

On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed a
lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory
judgment.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


INNERWORKINGS INC: Agreement in Principle Reached
-------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, 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 parties in a class
action lawsuit have reached an agreement in principle to settle
the litigation.

In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of
its intention to restate certain historical financial statements,
an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The
complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and
certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and
by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities,
relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The
purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside
sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in
France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. On
September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

On September 30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss, resulting in the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims relating to the inside sales initiative.

On March 18, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation. The settlement, which remains subject to
Court approval, provides for payment to the class of $6.0 million,
including plaintiff's attorneys' fees, in exchange for a full and
final release; the settlement also includes a denial of liability
or any wrongdoing by the Company and the individual defendants.
The settlement payment will be fully paid by the Company's
insurance carrier.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing to Approve Deal Not Yet Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, 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 plaintiffs in
a class action lawsuit has moved for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, but the Court has not yet scheduled a hearing
on that motion.

On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder
class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company
and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were
filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014.

The lawsuits alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10,
2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the
Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had
been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy
analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claimed that the January 9,
2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain
information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the
FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo.

On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the
cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the
Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the
order of the Court. The lead plaintiff was seeking unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On August 14, 2014,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Oral
arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on February 24, 2015.
On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied by
the Court. The defendants answered the amended complaint on April
13, 2015. On July 15, 2015, the plaintiff moved for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel. On September 14, 2015, the defendants opposed the
plaintiff's class certification motion. The plaintiff filed its
reply to the defendants' opposition on October 14, 2015, to which
the defendants filed a sur-reply on November 10, 2015. Oral
arguments on the class certification motion were held on January
20, 2016.

On May 2, 2016, the Company reached an agreement with the lead
plaintiff to seek Court approval of a proposed resolution. The
proposed settlement contemplates payment of $55 million, of which
$10 million will be funded by the Company's insurers. Under the
proposed settlement, the defendants do not admit any liability.
The defendants also continue to deny all allegations against them
and to maintain that the suit has no merit. It is anticipated that
the settlement will not have a material impact on the Company's
business. The plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement on May 5, 2016, but the Court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on that motion.

Following preliminary approval of the settlement, a notice will be
sent to class members with information regarding the terms of the
settlement, the plan for allocation and distribution of the
settlement funds, claim procedures and the final settlement
approval hearing. It is anticipated that the process will take
several months.

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


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Court Tosses "Reznik" Vacation Wages Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, YAKOV REZNIK,
Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-02419-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Yakov Reznik (Reznik) brings the putative class action
against Defendant International Business Machines Corporation
(IBM) for failure to pay earned vacation wages and "personal
choice holiday" wages upon termination. Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint alleges four claims: violation of California Labor Code
sections 227.3 (failure to pay vested vacation wages), 226
(inaccurate wage statements), and 203 (waiting time penalties), as
well as a claim for unfair competition under California Business
and Professions Code section 17200.

In her Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/J4FaNi
from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers found that Reznik has failed to
raise a disputed issue of fact material to his claim that he was
not paid all vested vacation at his final rate of pay upon
separation from IBM.

Yakov Reznik is represented by Peter Mark Hart, Esq. --
hartpeter@msn.com -- LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART; Tina Mehr, Esq.
-- tmehr@marlinsaltzman.com -- and Stanley Donald Saltzman, Esq.
-- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- MARLIN & SALTZMAN LLP

International Business Machines Corporation is represented by
Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Esq. -- cnasser@jonesday.com -- Matthew
W. Lampe, Esq. -- mlampe@jonesday.com -- Allison Elizabeth Crow,
Esq. -- acrow@jonesday.com -- and Wendy C. Butler, Esq. --
wbutler@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


INTREXON CORPORATION: Faces Hoffman and Gibrall Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intrexon 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 in May 2016, two
purported shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Hoffman v.
Intrexon Corporation et al. and Gibrall v. Intrexon Corporation et
al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between May 12, 2015 and April 20, 2016 (the "Class
Period"). The complaints name as defendants the Company and
certain current Company officers (the "Defendants"). The
complaints allege, among other things, that, in violation of the
federal securities laws, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements in its periodic reports on Forms 10-K
and 10-Q filed during the Class Period with respect to the
Company's business, operations and prospects. The basis for the
plaintiffs' claims derives from the April 21, 2016 report
published on the Seeking Alpha financial blog. The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that these
putative class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.

Intrexon designs, builds and regulates gene programs, which are
DNA sequences that consist of key genetic components.


J2 GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Motions Pending in Paldo Sign Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 summary judgment
motions in the case by Paldo Sign and Display Co. are pending.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an
amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former
employee as additional defendants in an existing putative class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-
cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common
law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of
a j2 Global affiliate's systems to send unsolicited facsimile
transmissions. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss
the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern
District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack
of personal jurisdiction. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff,
Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"), was added. On March 7, 2016, the j2 Global
affiliates moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims. The
summary judgment motions are pending.


J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 appeal is pending
in a multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286).

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance
as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the
Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of
defendants. While claims against some defendants have been
settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among
other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity
of the patents-in-suit.

On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a
claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final
judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on
that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a
notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-
1611). The appeal is pending.


J2 GLOBAL: Settlement in LEO and Dancel Cases Awaits Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 settlement in the
LEO and Dancel cases remains subject to court approval.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint
alleged two California statutory violations relating to late fees
levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, among
other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself
and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On
August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV Pit
Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative class action
against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los Angeles Superior
Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged three California
statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common law
claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global
affiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) and
Onebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related and
consolidated both cases for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015,
a third amended complaint was filed in the case brought by LEO,
which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added
Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff. On June 26, 2015,
the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed pursuant to a
settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015, the parties in the case
brought by LEO and Dancel reached a tentative class-based
settlement that remains subject to court approval.


JAGUAR ENERGY: Combs Appeals Ruling From Labor Suit to 10th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Combs filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Combs v. Jaguar Energy Services,
LLC, Case No. 1:15-CV-00815-REB-NYW, in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Combs v. Jaguar Energy
Services, LLC, Case No. 16-1250, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Combs is represented by:

          Brian Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES
          242 Linden Street
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Jaguar Energy Services, LLC, is represented by:

          Erich L. Bethke, Esq.
          SENN VISCIANO CANGES P.C.
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 298-1122
          Facsimile: (303) 296-9101
          E-mail: EBethke@SennLaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Hoeg, Esq.
          ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          600 Travis, Suite 4200
          Houston, TX 77002-0000
          Telephone: (713) 220-4200
          Facsimile: (713) 238-7328
          E-mail: matthewhoeg@andrewskurth.com


JAKKS PACIFIC: "Melot" Class Suit Still in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, 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 "Melot" class
action lawsuit remains in the early stage.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company
(collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported
class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations
against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the
"Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case
No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel
appointed.

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which
alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial
projections and performance as part of its public filings and
earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.
Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the
Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public
statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to
disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the
Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring
workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements
with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable
to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and
Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended
Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint
sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as
well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to
replead.

A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and
it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended
Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and
public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim
with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly
knew it was unable to meet was eliminated.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was
granted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC")
was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued on
July 22, 2015; after argument it was taken on submission and a
decision has not been issued.

"We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit,
and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because
the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you
as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action
would not have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations," the Company said.

The Company is a worldwide producer and marketer of children's
toys and other consumer products, principally engaged in the
design, development, production, marketing and distribution of its
diverse portfolio of products.


JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Friedman" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Friedman and Carla Hirschhorn filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Friedman v. JPMorgan
Chase & Co., Case No. 15-cv-5899, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit arose from alleged violations of securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Friedman v. JPMorgan Chase &
Co., Case No. 16-1913, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Richard Friedman and Carla Hirschhorn are
represented by:

          Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq.
          CHAITMAN LLP
          465 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (888) 759-1114
          E-mail: hchaitman@chaitmanllp.com

Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., JP Morgan Securities LLC, JPMorgan Securities Ltd., John
Hogan, and Richard Cassa are represented by:

          John Ford Savarese, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1235
          E-mail: jfsavarese@wlrk.com


KCG MANAGEMENT: "Carbajal" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CARBAJAL, LEONEL PERALTA, GERONIMO MACHADO, JUAN TAPIA,
NATALIO MACHADO, SANTOS MACHADO, ERIK ZAVALA, AND HUGO BALBOA, on
behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated,
known and unknown, the Plaintiffs v. KCG MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND MARK
KROG, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06005 (N.D.
Ill., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages and unlawful
deductions, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and the Illinois Employee
Classification Act (ECA).

The Defendants employed Plaintiffs at varying rates of pay in both
the winter and summer seasons from approximately 2013 through
early 2016. Throughout their employment during all seasons,
Plaintiffs customarily worked over 40 hours per week, yet were
paid at their straight rate of pay for all hours worked, including
those over forty in a workweek.

KCG Management is a snow plowing company in Schaumburg Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tom Geoghegan, Esq.
          DESPRES, SCHWARTZ, & GEOGHEGAN, LTD.
          77 W. Washington St. Room 711
          Chicago, IL, 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372 2511

               - and -

          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER
          ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784 3541


KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL: "Chisolm" Suit Denied Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III of the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina denied
Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder and Class Action Status in the case
captioned, DON SURVI CHISOLM, Plaintiff, v. CPL. HAROLD CAMPBELL,
OFC. BRONSON, and DIRECTOR BRYAN P. STERLING, Defendant, Case No.
4:15-CV-4943-RBH-TER (D.S.C.).

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings the action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that on June 29, 2015, he
and several other inmates were being driven to Kirkland
Correctional Institution (KCI) by Cpl. Harold Campbell for medical
treatment. Plaintiff alleges that Director Bryan P. Sterling is
liable for Plaintiff's injuries arising out of his transport by
Cpl. Campbell because Sterling "is the executor and approver" of
the policy that requires all South Carolina Department of
Correction (SCDC) transport vehicles except for buses to be
equipped with seatbelts.

In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to join the present action with
three other cases filed by other Plaintiffs arising out of the
same events on June 29, 2015: Johnson v. Stirling, Case No. 1:15-
cv-4942-RMG-SVH;Norris v. Stirling, Case No. 1:15-cv-4961-JFA-SVH;
and Inman v. Stirling, 1:15cv-4962-JMC-SVH.

In his Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/4AGI3a
from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers, III held that Plaintiff fails to
address any of the prerequisites set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)
for class certification.

Cpl. Harold Campbell, Ofc Bronson and Bryan P. Sterling  are
represented by Harry Cooper Wilson, III, Esq. --
cooper.wilson@hoodlaw.com -- Robert H. Hood, Esq. --
bobby.hood@hoodlaw.com -- and Benjamin Houston Joyce, Esq. --
ben.joyce@hoodlaw.com -- HOOD LAW FIRM


KMART CORPORATION: "Hautur" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GINA HAUTUR & CAROL GURNISH, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KMART
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-03226 (W.D.N.Y., June
6, 2016), seeks to recover (i) unpaid overtime wages for hours
worked above 40 in a workweek, as required by law, and (ii)
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

According to the complaint, Defendant scheduled Plaintiff Hautur
to work at least 48 hours per week (not including lunch), and she
worked a minimum of 48 hours per week, but was not paid for the
hours worked in excess of 40.

Kmart is a nationwide retailer of electronics, toys, clothing,
bedding, furniture & home decor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934 9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934 9220
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  Fran@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429 2294
          Facsimile: (202) 429 2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  nmigliaccio@masonlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532 3801
          E-mail: david@legalroth.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884 2492


LEASING ENTERPRISES: 5th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida affirmed in part a
district court decision  in the case captioned, GIULLIAN STEELE;
RAUL ALEMAN; YURY X. BASTOS; JARROD DENYER; SUSAN McMILLAN; ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellees Cross-Appellants, v. LEASING ENTERPRISES,
LIMITED, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee, Case No. 15-20139
(5th Cir.).

Leasing Enterprises, Limited owns Perry's Restaurants, LLC, which
operates a number of restaurants, primarily in Texas. Plaintiffs-
Appellees constitute a class of servers employed by Perry's. In
August 2009, Plaintiffs initiated the collective action. In their
third amended complaint, they alleged that Perry's had violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by charging its servers the 3.25%
offset fee.

Following a bench trial, the district court issued findings of
fact and conclusions of law, holding that Perry's' 3.25% offset
violated the FLSA because the offset exceeded Perry's' credit card
issuer fees. The court also held that Perry's' cash-delivery
expenses could not be included in the offset amount because "the
restaurant's decision to pay its servers in cash is a business
decision, not a fee directly attributable to its cost of dealing
in credit" and that Perry's had failed to prove fees related to
cancellation of transactions and manual entry of credit card
numbers, and therefore could not rely on these amounts to justify
the amount of its offset. Finally, the court held that Perry's may
not include other expenses, such as costs associated with
bookkeeping and reconciliation of cash tips, in the offset amount
because those costs are incurred as a result of ordinary
operations only indirectly related to Perry's' tip policy. The
court concluded that even if it included all of Perry's' indirect
costs, the 3.25% offset fee exceeded Perry's' total costs.

On appeal, Perry challenges the district court's liability holding
under the FLSA and its decision to certify the second class.
Plaintiffs cross-appealed, challenging the district court's
holdings that Plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney's fees,
liquidated damages, or an extension of the limitations period from
two to three years.

In her Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/NJ4lRJ
from Leagle.com, Judge Higginson affirmed the district court's
holding that Perry's violated 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(m) because the
deduction exceeded the direct costs of collecting credit card tips
for Perry's' tipped employees. The district court did not err by
certifying a second conditional class, declining to award
Plaintiffs liquidated damages, and concluding that Perry's did not
willfully violate the FLSA but concluded that the district court
did abuse its discretion by declining to award Plaintiffs
attorney's fees.


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Defending Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
MagicJack Vocaltec Ltd 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 purported class
action lawsuit was filed on March 11, 2016, against the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Vento ("Mr. Vento"), and its
Chief Financial Officer, Jose Gordo ("Mr. Gordo"), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo
made false and misleading statements regarding the financial
performance and guidance during the alleged class period of
November 12, 2013 to March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that
the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable/injunctive relief or such
other relief as the court deems proper.

The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit. The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against it and the Company
does not believe that the outcome of this legal proceeding will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
operating results, financial condition or cash flows. Because the
case is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot estimate the
likelihood of liability or the amount of potential damages, if
any.

magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a
cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack
devices and other magicJack products and services.


MDL 2295: $18 Million Class Action Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
PRA 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 parties in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation are waiting for the
Court to approve a settlement agreement, whereby the Company would
pay $18 million to resolve the MDL action.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On
December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one
consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14,
2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following
the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on June
10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court
lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May
20, 2014.

In January 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
principle under which the parties have agreed to seek court
approval of class certification and the proposed settlement. In
April 2016, the parties sought preliminary Court approval of a
settlement agreement, whereby the Company would pay $18 million to
resolve the MDL action.  The Company had fully accrued for the
settlement amount as of December 31, 2015.

PRA Group's primary business is the purchase, collection and
management of portfolios of nonperforming loans.


MITEL NETWORKS: "Solak" Sues overt Shady Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
John Solak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Peter A. Leav, Martha H. Bejar, Gary J.
Daichendt, Robert J. Frankenberg, John A. Kelley, Jr., D. Scott
Mercer, Betsy S. Atkins, Mitel Networks Corporation and Meteor
Two, Inc., Defendants. v. Case No. 5:16-cv-03128 (N.D. Cal., June
8, 2016), seeks rescinding of a merger, enjoinment from
consummating acquisition, reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further equitable relief for breach of
fiduciary duty and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Plaintiff is a stockholder of Polycom, Inc., a Delaware
corporation with principal executive offices located at 6001
America Center Drive, San Jose, California. Polycom offers open,
standards-based unified communications and collaboration solutions
for voice, video and content sharing.

The Polycom Board had agreed to sell Polycom to Mitel, a Canadian
corporation providing cloud, mobile and enterprise communications
and collaboration solutions. The deal allegedly undervalues
Polycom and the decision to sell Polycom in exchange for $12 per
Polycom share will prevent Plaintiff from realizing the benefits
of the Company's impressive financial results and continuing
growth.

Peter A. Leav, Martha H. Bejar, Gary J. Daichendt, Robert J.
Frankenberg, John A. Kelley, Jr., D. Scott Mercer and Betsy S.
Atkins serves in the Polycom Board.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
     Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
     ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
     600B Street, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 525-3990
     Fax: (619) 525-3991
     Email: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
            soddo@robbinsarroyo.com


MODEL N: Calif. Class Action Settlement Wins Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
Model N, 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 in California
has approved the settlement of a consolidated class action
lawsuit.

On September 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, purported securities
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
executive officers and underwriters of the initial public offering
(IPO). The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of the
Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who
purchased the Company's stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages
and other relief. On March 2, 2015, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two class action lawsuits.

On November 4, 2015, all parties reached a mutually acceptable
resolution by way of a mediated settlement. The Company does not
believe that its portion of the settlement amount will be material
to its results of operations.

On April 4, 2016, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo approved the settlement.

Model N, Inc. (Company) was incorporated in Delaware on December
14, 1999. The Company is a provider of revenue management
solutions for the life science and technology industries.


MONEY MUTUAL: Court Denies Defendants' Discovery & Deposition Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, SEAN L. GILBERT, et al., Plaintiff, v.
MONEY MUTUAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-01171-JSW
(LB) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
denied defendants' motion for discovery and deposition from the
plaintiffs' counsel, Jeffrey Neil Wilens, Esq.

On December 10, 2015, the moving defendants' counsel attended a
dinner in Las Vegas with an attorney named Tim Muir, who
represents Scott Tucker and entities affiliated with Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Muir told the defendants' counsel about a consulting
arrangement with the plaintiffs' class counsel, Mr. Wilens.

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has
charged Mr. Tucker (and Mr. Muir) with operating an unlawful
Internet payday lending enterprise in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c),
and The Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1611, and
the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") charged him civilly based on
the same conduct with violations of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
45(a), TILA's disclosure requirements (implemented in 12 C.F.R.
Sec. 1026), and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1693(k)(1) (implemented in 12 C.F.R. Sec. 1005.10(e)(1)).

The defendants seek to depose Mr. Wilens in aid of a motion to
disqualify him, not only about the Tucker arrangement, but also
about any other similar offers or arrangements that Mr. Wilens
proposed in this or other cases or situations.

The defendants argue that if Mr. Wilens entered into a forbearance
agreement with Mr. Tucker, then "it creates a clear conflict of
interest between Mr. Wilens and the class to the extent that he
may have disregarded claims held by potential class members in
favor of his own pecuniary interests."

In his Order dated June 9, 2016 available at https://is.gd/CQYifL
from Leagle.com, Judge Beeler held that the motion be denied
because document discovery and the plaintiffs' counsel's
declaration illuminate the issue sufficiently to allow the
defendants to file a motion to disqualify class counsel.

Sean L. Gilbert, et al. are represented by Andrew C. Simpson, Esq.
-- asimpson@coralbrief.com -- LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW C. SIMPSON
P.C., Jeffrey Neil Wilens, Esq.  -- jeff@lakeshorelaw.org --
LAKESHORE LAW CENTER and Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. --
jps@spencerlaw.net -- THE SPENCER LAW FIRM

MoneyMutual, LLC et al. are represented by Donald J. Putterman,
Esq. -- dputterman@plylaw.com -- Michelle Lee Landry, Esq. --
Mlandry@plylaw.com -- and Tobias George Snyder, Esq. --
tsnyder@plylaw.com -- PUTTERMAN LANDRY YU LLP

David A. Johnson, Defendant is represented by Ashley Brooke Vinson
Crawford, Esq. -- avinson@akingump.com -- Danielle C. Ginty, Esq.
-- dginty@akingump.com -- and Reginald David Steer, Esq. --
rsteel@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP


MONGE SERVICES: "Tobar" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JOAQUIN HUMBERTO GONZALEZ TOBAR 309 Tompkins Lane Waldorf, MD
20602 (Charles County), on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MONGE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a M.
MONGE SERVICES, INC. 1037 Wales Drive La Plata, MD 20646 (Charles
County), JUAN MAURICIO MONGE CHICAS a/k/a JUAN MAURICIO MONGE-
CHICAS a/k/a Juan Monge a/k/a Juan Chicas 1037 Wales Drive
La Plata, MD 20646 (Charles County), ROSA IDALIA MONGE a/k/a ROSA
MONGE a/k/a ROSA GRANADOS 1037 Wales Drive La Plata, MD 20646
(Charles County), BRIAN MAURICIO MONGE GRANADOS a/k/a BRIAN MONGE
a/k/a BRIAN GRANADOS, 1037 Wales Drive La Plata, MD 20646 (Charles
County), the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01961-TDC (D. Md., June
8, 2016), seeks to recover damages for Defendants' willful failure
to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL),

Defendants employed Plaintiff as a painter in Maryland. Defendants
paid Plaintiff a daily salary, irrespective of the actual hours
worked by Plaintiff in a day or week. As a result, Defendants
denied Plaintiff overtime wages.

MONGE SERVICES is in painting and paper hanging industry in La
Plata.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC
          519 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 803 6081
          Facsimile: (202) 683 6102
          E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


NATIONAL DEBT: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ALBERTO ALVAREZ, JR., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC,
DANIEL TILIPMAN, and ALEX KLEYNER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-04156-CM (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
the value of his converted property, and reasonable attorney fees
and cost incurred in this action, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate
Plaintiff for overtime pay in accordance with the FLSA and NYLL;
and failed to provide wage notices and proper statements under
NYLL.

National Debt focuses on credit card debt relief and settlement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Liane Fisher, Esq.
          Michael Taunbenfeld, Esq.
          SERRINS FISHER LLP
          233 Broadway, Suite 2340
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 571 0700
          E-mail: liane@serrinsfisher.com
                  michael@serrinsfisher.com


NEOVASC INC: Sued in D. Mass. Over Violations of Exchange Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO GROBLER, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEOVASC INC., ALEXEI MARKO, and
CHRISTOPHER CLARK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11038-RGS (D.
Mass., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages in connection with
Plaintiffs' purchases of Neovasc securities, under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the NEOVASC stock price.
As a result of the fraud, the Company has lost a substantial
portion of its value. The Plaintiff brought this federal
securities class action against Neovasc and certain of its
officers and/or directors for violations of the federal securities
laws.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, seeks
judgment:

     a) Declaring this action to be a class action pursuant to
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of the Class;

     b) Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
damages in an amount which may be proven at trial, together with
interest thereon;

     c) Awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Class pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable
attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs; and

     d) Awarding such other relief as this Court deems
appropriate.

Neovasc is a specialty medical device company that develops,
manufactures and markets products for the rapidly growing
cardiovascular marketplace.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph E. White III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (561) 394 3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394 3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Today
------------------------------------------------------------
Netsol Technologies, 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 Court has
scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for June 27, 2016.

On July 25, 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain of its current or former officers
and/or directors, which have been consolidated under the caption
Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-05787 PA (SHx). Plaintiffs subsequently filed
consolidated amended complaints, which asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
As a result of the Company's motions, the Court now has dismissed
all of plaintiffs' claims except those related to the scope of the
Company's release of its next generation product, NFS Ascent(TM),
during the narrow proposed class period of October 24, 2013 to
November 8, 2013. The Company has filed an answer and affirmative
defenses denying the remaining claims.

On February 26, 2016, the parties executed a Stipulation of
Settlement to fully resolve the consolidated class action lawsuit,
and filed a motion seeking the Federal Court's approval of the
settlement.

On March 28, 2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and providing for notice to class
members. The Court also scheduled the final settlement approval
hearing for June 27, 2016.

The Company expects the cost of settlement to be fully covered by
its insurers. The Company believes that plaintiffs' allegations
are meritless and, in the event that the Court does not approve
the parties' settlement, it intends to vigorously defend all
claims asserted. If the settlement is not approved and the
litigation continues, at this stage of the litigation the Company
is unable to form a professional judgment that an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote, and it is not possible to
assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will or
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.


NIMBLE STORAGE: Schwartz and Goldstein Lawsuits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
There are presently two shareholder derivative actions pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against certain current and former directors and
officers of nominal defendant Nimble Storage, Inc.: Schwartz v.
Vasudevan, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00892-YGR; and Goldstein v.
Vasudevan, et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-02238-YGR.

There also are three putative class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws filed against Nimble and certain Nimble
officers pending in this district: Vikramkumar v. Nimble Storage,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-05803-YGR; Guardino v. Nimble
Storage, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:15-cv-05991-YGR; and Madhani v.
Nimble Storage, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00629-YGR.

In a Stipulation and Order dated June 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/5aUxgo from Leagle.com, District Judge Yvonne
Gonzales Rogers consolidated the cases, Schwartz v. Vasudevan, et
al.; Goldstein v. Vasudevan, et al., for all purposes, including
pre-trial proceedings and trial, into one action.  The Court
designated Johnson & Weaver, LLP, and Frank J. Johnson, Esq., as
Lead Counsel, which will be responsible for coordinating all
activities and appearances on behalf of plaintiffs and for the
dissemination of notices and orders of the Court.

Sheldon Schwartz is represented by Adam Todd Hoover, Esq. --
adhoover@reichradcliffe.com -- and Marc Gene Reich, Esq. --
mgreich@reichradcliffe.com -- REICH RADCLIFFE AND KUTTLER LLP --
and Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. -- jml@jlclasslaw.com -- LIFSHITZ &
MILLER

Arthur Goldstein is represented by Frank James Johnson, Esq. --
frankj@johnsonandweaver.com --
JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP

Suresh Vasudevan, et al. are  represented by Deborah Kang, Esq. --
dkang@fenwick.com -- Felix Shih-Young Lee, Esq. --
flee@fenwick.com -- Michael M. Davis-Wilson, Esq. --
mdaviswilson@fenwick.com -- Michael Scott Dicke, Esq. --
mdicke@fenwick.com -- and Susan Samuels Muck, Esq. --
smuck@fenwick.com -- FENWICK & WEST LLP


NYC BUILDERS: "Ferrari" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO FERRARI, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. NYC BUILDERS INC., ANTHONY QUINN,
and ADAM, [LNU], the Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (S.D.
Fla., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the Plaintiff, throughout his employment, he was paid
an hourly wage of $17.00 per hour. He was always paid straight-
time, including all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members were
similarly compensated at straight-time hourly rates, without any
overtime compensation.

NYC Builders is residential and commercial contractor serving
Manhattan, Brooklyn and throughout New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACIFIC GATEWAY: "Hochstetler" Settlement Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted final
approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned,
RACHEL HOCHSTETLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GATEWAY
CONCESSIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-04748-TEH (N.D. Cal.).

On October 5, 2015, Plaintiffs Rachel Hochstetler (Hochstetler)
and Cirena Torres (Torres), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement. At the hearing, the Court ordered the
parties to submit, on or before January 11, 2016, supplemental
briefing regarding the following aspects of their proposed
Settlement:

     (1) the exclusion of Electronic Goods from the type of goods
that may be purchased with the Gift Cards that comprise the
$800,000 Settlement Fund;

     (2) the limitation of one $100 Gift Card per Settlement Class
member;

     (3) Class Notice through only the posting of a Short-Form
Notice at each cash register in each of the PGC Included Stores;
and

     (4) the charities selected to receive any residual funds from
the Settlement Fund.

The parties timely submitted a supplemental response, supporting
declaration, and notices addressing these four concerns.

On February 2, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting
preliminary approval of the Settlement.

On May 6, 2016, Hochstetler and Torres, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of the Settlement Class, filed a Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement. Also on May 6, 2016,
Hochstetler, Torres, and Class Counsel filed a Motion for Award of
Attorney's Fees and Costs to Class Counsel and Incentive Payments
to the Class Representatives.

In his Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/9xgxT4
from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson found that the terms of the
proposed Settlement are fair, adequate, and reasonable and comply
with Rule 23(e) and Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

The Court appoints Roman Zak as plaintiffs Hochstetler and Torres
as the Class Representatives and attorney Chant Yedalian of Chant
& Company A Professional Law Corporation as Class Counsel.

Rachel Hochstetler and Cirena Torres are  represented by Chant
Yedalian, Esq. -- chant@chant.mobi -- CHANT & COMPANY

Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC is  represented by Mara Elizabeth
Rosales, Esq. -- mara@rosaleslawpartners.com -- and Robert Durston
Sanford, Esq. -- rsanfordlaw@gmail.com -- ROSALES LAW PARTNERS LLP


PEAKS PROPERTIES: Violated Disabilities Act, "Foster" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leland Foster, individually, and on behalf of individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PEAKS PROPERTIES, LLC, a
Michigan limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-12048-BAF-RSW (E.D. Mich., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover
injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses,
and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA).

PEAKS PROPERTIES, LLC owns a Twin Peaks located at 1111 W 14 Mile
Rd, Madison Heights, MI 48071 in Oakland County. Plaintiff
previously patronized Defendant's restaurant as a place of public
accommodation.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated
against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full
and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          Valerie J. Fatica, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR.
          The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center
          4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
          Toledo, OH 43615
          Telephone: (419) 241 9661
          Facsimile: (419) 241 9737
          E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net
                  valeriefatica@gmail.com


PEVETO COMPANIES: "Herron" Suit Denied Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JAMES HERRON, Plaintiff, v. PEVETO
COMPANIES, LTD. and PEVETO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No.
H-15-766 (S.D. Tex.), District Judge Gray H. Miller of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied
plaintiff James Herron's motion for conditional certification of a
collective action, for notice to potential plaintiffs, and for
production of information necessary for notice and motion for
continuance and to extend deadlines in the amended scheduling
order.

On March 24, 2015, Herron brought the action for unpaid minimum
wages and unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants operate a brake, oil, and
alignment services business under the assumed name of Brake Check
in approximately 40 locations in Texas, including Harris County,
Texas. Herron worked for Defendants as a Manager in Training and
Service Manager between August 25, 2014 and December 31, 2014.
Herron now alleges that Defendants have violated the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201, "by misclassifying the Managers in Training and
Service Managers at its stores and failing to pay them for
overtime."

On April 4, 2016, Herron filed a motion for conditional
certification of a collection action, for notice to potential
plaintiffs, and for production of information necessary for
notice. On May 12, 2016, Herron filed a motion for continuance and
to extend the deadlines in the court's amended scheduling order.

Herron's motion to conditionally certify a collective action is
denied without prejudice to resubmission if Herron is later able
to submit more persuasive information showing that other similarly
situated employees want to join the lawsuit, Judge Miller said in
his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 7, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/dUtRt0 from Leagle.com.

James Herron is represented by Jennifer Jackson Spencer, Esq. --
JSpencer@SpencerScottLaw.com -- SPENCER SCOTT PLLC

Peveto Companies, Ltd. is represented by:

Barry A. McClenahan, Esq.
Shan Marie Egliskis, Esq.
THE MCCLENAHAN LAW FIRM
1901 NW Military Hwy # 218
San Antonio, TX 78213
Tel: (210)525-9600

Peveto Holdings, L.L.C. is represented by:

Shan Marie Egliskis, Esq.
THE MCCLENAHAN LAW FIRM
1901 NW Military Hwy # 218
San Antonio, TX 78213
Tel: (210)525-9600


PHO HUYNH: "Tam" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
TAM THANH CAO and CHINH THI NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PHO HUYNH HIEP
I, INC; PHO HUYNH HIEP II, INC.; PHO HUYNH HIEP III, INC.; PHO
HUYNH HIEP 4, INC.; PHO HUYNH HIEP V, INC.; PHO HUYNH HIEP 6,
INC.; SEN HUYNH; LIEU THI TRAN; PHONG HOANG HUYNH; and KEVIN SON
HOANG HUYNH, the Defendants, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
03011 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2016), seeks restitution and
compensation on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
employees for unpaid wages, including meal and rest period
premiums, overtime premiums, statutory penalties, and interest.

The Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), Labor Code, and Code of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants who were not
compensated for their work or provided compliant meal and rest
breaks.

The Defendants operate a chain of restaurants known as "Pho Huynh
Hiep" and "Kevin's Noodle House" throughout the Bay Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
          Huy Tran, Esq.
          Betty Duong, Esq.
          JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP
          84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 790
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 317 1100
          Facsimile: (408) 351 0105
          E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.com
                  Huy@JAWLawGroup.com
                  Betty@JAWLawGroup.com


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Updates on Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc., 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, provided updates on the
shareholder litigation.

On September 28, 2015, Phoenix entered into a definitive merger
agreement to be acquired by Nassau. On October 26, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder
of Phoenix in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut
challenging the proposed merger transaction. The lawsuit alleges
that the individual members of Phoenix's Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Phoenix shareholders by
agreeing to the proposed merger transaction for inadequate
consideration and through an allegedly flawed sales process, and
that the defendant companies -- Phoenix, Nassau and Davero Merger
Sub Corp. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Nassau) -- aided and
abetted such alleged breaches. The plaintiff in the action, which
was styled Thomas White v. The Phoenix Companies, Inc., et. al.,
No. HHD-CV15--6063180-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford), sought,
among other things, an order enjoining the merger and, in the
event the merger is completed, rescission and/or damages as a
result of the alleged violations of law, as well as fees and
costs. From late November to early December 2015, Phoenix and the
plaintiff engaged in arm's-length negotiations for the expedited
production of certain documents.

On December 10, 2015, Phoenix and the other defendants executed a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiff providing
for settlement of the suit based on certain supplemental
disclosures to be released to Phoenix shareholders in advance of
the December 17, 2015 shareholder vote. The settlement reflected
in the MOU is subject to certain confirmatory discovery by the
plaintiffs in the litigation and subject to the approval of the
Court, among other things. The defendants have vigorously denied,
and continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were
alleged in the litigation.

The MOU outlines the terms of the agreement in principle to settle
and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in
the litigation. The parties to the MOU will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the Court for
final approval. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including approval by the Court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. The stipulation of settlement will provide for, among
other things, the conditional certification of the Litigation as a
non opt-out class action. The stipulation of settlement will
provide for the release of any and all claims arising from the
merger, subject to approval by the Court. The release will not
become effective until the stipulation of settlement is approved
by the Court. In connection with the settlement, subject to the
ultimate determination of the Court, counsel for plaintiff may
receive an award of reasonable fees. Neither this payment nor the
settlement will affect the consideration to be received by Phoenix
stockholders in the merger or the timing of the anticipated
closing of the merger. There can be no assurance that the settling
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the Court will approve the settlement even if the settling
parties were to enter into the stipulation. In such event, or if
the merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed
settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect.

In January 2016, named-plaintiff, Thomas White, and non-party,
Stephen Bushansky, a member of the putative class, moved to
substitute Stephen Bushansky as plaintiff, which motion was
granted.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Updates Consent Solicitation Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc., 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, provided updates on the so-
called Consent Solicitation Litigation.

On February 8, 2016, plaintiff Kenneth Roth filed a putative class
action complaint ("Complaint") in New York Supreme Court (New York
County) (the "Court") against The Phoenix Companies, Inc.
("Phoenix") and U.S. Bank National Association in its capacity as
indenture trustee (the "Trustee"), Index No. 650634/2016 (the
"Litigation"), relating to a January 7, 2016 consent solicitation
launched by Phoenix in connection with its 7.45% Quarterly
Interest Bonds due 2032 (the "Consent Solicitation").

The Complaint asserts claims against Phoenix for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligent misrepresentation, a temporary restraining order, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, and a declaratory judgment.
In addition to damages, costs, and attorneys' fees, the Complaint
asks the Court to temporarily restrain, and preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the Consent Solicitation or, alternatively,
declare that the proposed supplemental indenture is null and void.
The Complaint further alleges that the Trustee breached its
fiduciary duty to bondholders by, inter alia, allowing the Consent
Solicitation to be issued.

Phoenix believes that the lawsuit is without merit and that no
additional or amended disclosure is required to supplement the
Consent Solicitation, and that no changes to the proposed
supplemental indenture are required, under applicable laws;
however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, and without admitting any liability
or wrongdoing, Phoenix agreed, pursuant to the terms of a MOU, to:
(a) revise the proposed Fourth Supplemental Indenture to make
available to bondholders certain information in connection with
Phoenix's reporting obligations under Section 704, as amended by
the Fourth Supplemental Indenture, (b) make available financial
statements and related information of Phoenix not only to current
bondholders but also to prospective bondholders, securities
analysts and market makers, as detailed in the supplemental
disclosures to the Consent Solicitation, and (c) make certain
other supplemental disclosures to the Consent Solicitation.

On February 24, 2016, the parties to the Litigation (the "Settling
Parties") entered into the MOU providing for the settlement of the
Litigation, subject to the approval of the Court, among other
things. The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
vigorously to deny, that they have committed any violation of law
or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the
Litigation. The MOU outlines the terms of the Settling Parties'
agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were
or could have been asserted in the Litigation. The parties to the
MOU will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement that will
be presented to the Court for final approval. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
approval by the Court, which will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will provide for, among other things, the release of
any and all claims arising from or relating to the Consent
Solicitation, subject to approval by the Court. The release will
not become effective until the stipulation of settlement is
approved by the Court. In connection with the settlement, subject
to the ultimate determination of the Court, counsel for plaintiff
may receive an award of reasonable fees. Neither this payment nor
the settlement will affect the consent fee to be received by
consenting Phoenix bondholders in the Consent Solicitation. There
can be no assurance that the Settling Parties will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will
approve the settlement even if the Settling Parties were to enter
into the stipulation. In such event the proposed settlement will
be null and void and of no force and effect.


PK PROMOTIONS: "Haas" Suit Seeks Overtime Wage Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
GEORGIANNE HAAS and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. PK PROMOTIONS, LLC, dba LOGOTOLOGY, the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-01549-B (N.D. Tex., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an embroidery worker from
March 2014 to April 18, 2016. Plaintiff worked approximately 46
hours per week and was paid approximately $13.00 per hour, but was
not paid the extra halftime overtime rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA.

PK Promotions is a small organization in the business services
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
          URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 145E
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (214) 420 3366
          Facsimile: (214) 206 9802
          E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com
                  urquidezlawfirm@gmail.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Updates on Line 901 Incident Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., 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, provided updates on
litigation related to Line 901 Incident.

The Company said, "In May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release
from our Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa
Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil
reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a
drainage culvert. Following the release, we shut down the pipeline
and initiated our emergency response plan. A Unified Command,
which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the
California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa
Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the
response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect
to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the
Unified Command to be complete, subject to continued shoreline
monitoring. The cause of the release remains under investigation.
Our current "worst case" estimate of the amount of oil spilled,
representing the maximum volume of oil that we believed could have
been spilled based on relevant facts, data and information, is
approximately 2,935 barrels."

"As a result of the Line 901 incident, several governmental
agencies and regulators have initiated investigations into the
Line 901 incident, various claims have been made against us and a
number of lawsuits have been filed against us. We may be subject
to additional claims, investigations and lawsuits, which could
materially impact the liabilities and costs we currently expect to
incur as a result of the Line 901 incident.

"On May 21, 2015, we received a corrective action order from the
United States Department of Transportation's Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ("PHMSA"), the
governmental agency with jurisdiction over the operation of Line
901 as well as over a second stretch of pipeline extending from
Gaviota Pump Station in Santa Barbara County to Emidio Pump
Station in Kern County, California (Line 903), requiring us to
shut down, purge, review, remediate and test Line 901. On June 3,
2015, the corrective action order was amended to require us to
take additional corrective actions with respect to both Lines 901
and 903, and on November 13, 2015, the corrective action order was
further amended to require the purge and shutdown of Line 903
between Gaviota and Pentland (as amended, the "CAO"). Among other
requirements, the CAO also obligates us to conduct a root cause
failure analysis with respect to Line 901 and present remedial
work plans and restart plans to PHMSA prior to returning Line 901
and 903 to service; the CAO also imposes a pressure restriction on
Line 903 and requires us to take other specified actions with
respect to both Lines 901 and 903. We intend to continue to comply
with the CAO and to cooperate with any other governmental
investigations relating to or arising out of the release.
Excavation and removal of the affected section of the pipeline was
completed on May 28, 2015. Line 901 and Line 903 have been purged
and are not currently operational. No timeline has been
established for the restart of Line 901 or Line 903. On February
17, 2016, PHMSA issued a Preliminary Factual Report of the Line
901 failure, which contains PHMSA's preliminary findings regarding
factual information about the events leading up to the accident
and the technical analysis that has been conducted to date. By
virtue of its statutory authority, PHMSA has the power and
authority to impose fines and penalties on us and cause civil or
criminal charges to be brought against us. While to date PHMSA has
not imposed any such fines or penalties or pursued any such civil
or criminal charges with respect to the Line 901 release, there
can be no assurance that such fines or penalties will not be
imposed upon us, or that such civil or criminal charges will not
be brought against us, in the future.

"On September 11, 2015, we received a Notice of Probable Violation
and Proposed Compliance Order from PHMSA arising out of its
inspection of Lines 901 and 903 in August, September and October
of 2013 (the "2013 Audit NOPV"). The 2013 Audit NOPV alleges that
the Partnership committed probable violations of various federal
pipeline safety regulations by failing to document, or
inadequately documenting, certain activities. On October 12, 2015,
the Partnership filed a response to the 2013 Audit NOPV. To date,
PHMSA has not issued a final order with respect to the 2013 Audit
NOPV, nor has it assessed any fines or penalties with respect
thereto; however, we cannot provide any assurances that any such
fines or penalties will not be assessed against us.

"In late May of 2015, on behalf of the EPA, the United States
Attorney for the Department of Justice, Central District of
California, Environmental Crimes Section ("DOJ") began an
investigation into whether there were any violations of federal
criminal statutes in connection with the Line 901 incident,
including potential violations of the federal Clean Water Act. We
are cooperating with the DOJ's investigation by responding to
their requests for documents and access to our employees. The DOJ
has already spoken to several of our employees and has expressed
an interest in talking to other employees; consistent with the
terms of our governing organizational documents, we are funding
our employees' defense costs, including the costs of separate
counsel engaged to represent such individuals. In addition to the
DOJ, the California Attorney General's Office and the District
Attorney's Office for the County of Santa Barbara are also
investigating the Line 901 incident to determine whether any
applicable state or local laws have been violated. On August 26,
2015, we also received a Request for Information from the EPA
relating to Line 901 and we are in the process of responding to
such request. While to date no civil or criminal charges with
respect to the Line 901 release have been brought against PAA or
any of its affiliates, officers or employees by PHMSA, DOJ, EPA,
California Attorney General or Santa Barbara County District
Attorney, and no fines or penalties have been imposed by such
governmental agencies, there can be no assurance that such fines
or penalties will not be imposed upon us, our officers or our
employees, or that such civil or criminal charges will not be
brought against us, our officers or our employees in the future,
whether by those or other governmental agencies.

"Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims
line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release
to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a
number of claims through the claims line and we are processing
those claims for payment as we receive them. In addition, we have
also had eight class action lawsuits filed against us, seven of
which have been administratively consolidated into a single
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to
establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been
damaged by the release, including potential classes such as
persons that derive a significant portion of their income through
commercial fishing and harvesting activities in the waters
adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from businesses that are
dependent on marine resources from Santa Barbara County, retail
businesses located in historic downtown Santa Barbara, certain
owners of oceanfront and/or beachfront property on the Pacific
Coast of California, and other classes of individuals and
businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release.

"There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits
filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership
and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their
respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material
facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The
plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction
in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which
they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants. The
Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, deny the
allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond accordingly.
Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing
organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance
policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of
our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits; we
are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our
underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements
we previously entered into with such underwriters.

"In addition, three unitholder derivative lawsuits have been filed
by certain purported investors in the Partnership against the
Partnership, certain of its affiliates and certain officers and
directors. Two of these lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas and the other
was filed in State District Court in Harris County, Texas. In
general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants
breached their fiduciary duties, engaged in gross mismanagement
and made false and misleading statements, among other similar
allegations, in connection with their management and oversight of
the Partnership during the period of time leading up to and
following the Line 901 release. The plaintiffs claim that the
Partnership suffered unspecified damages as a result of the
actions of the various defendants and seek to hold the defendants
liable for such damages, in addition to other remedies. The
defendants deny the allegations in these lawsuits and intend to
respond accordingly. Consistent with and subject to the terms of
our governing organizational documents (and to the extent
applicable, insurance policies), we are indemnifying and funding
the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with
these lawsuits.

"We have also had two lawsuits filed against us in the Chancery
Court for the State of Delaware wherein the respective plaintiffs
seek to compel the production of certain books and records that
purportedly relate to the Line 901 incident, our alleged failure
to comply with certain regulations and other matters.

"In addition to the foregoing, as the "responsible party" for the
Line 901 incident we are liable for various costs and for certain
natural resource damages under the Oil Pollution Act, and we also
have exposure to the payment of additional fines, penalties and
costs under other applicable federal, state and local laws,
statutes and regulations. To the extent any such costs are
reasonably estimable, we have included an estimate of such costs
in the loss accrual described below.

"Taking the foregoing into account, as of March 31, 2016, we
estimate that the aggregate total costs we have incurred or will
incur with respect to the Line 901 incident will be approximately
$269 million, which estimate includes actual and projected
emergency response and clean-up costs, natural resource damage
assessments and certain third party claims settlements, as well as
estimates for fines, penalties and certain legal fees. This
estimate considers our prior experience in environmental
investigation and remediation matters and available data from, and
in consultation with, our environmental and other specialists, as
well as currently available facts and presently enacted laws and
regulations. We have made assumptions for (i) the expected number
of days that monitoring services will be required, (ii) the
duration of the natural resource damage assessment and the
ultimate amount of damages determined, (iii) the resolution of
certain third party claims and lawsuits, but excluding claims and
lawsuits with respect to which losses are not probable and
reasonably estimable, and excluding future claims and lawsuits,
(iv) the determination and calculation of fines and penalties, but
excluding fines and penalties that are not probable and reasonably
estimable and (v) the nature, extent and cost of legal services
that will be required in connection with all lawsuits, claims and
other matters requiring legal or expert advice associated with the
Line 901 incident. Our estimate does not include any lost revenue
associated with the shutdown of Line 901 or 903 and does not
include any liabilities or costs that are not reasonably estimable
at this time or that relate to contingencies where we currently
regard the likelihood of loss as being only reasonably possible or
remote. We believe we have accrued adequate amounts for all
probable and reasonably estimable costs; however, this estimate is
subject to uncertainties associated with the assumptions that we
have made. For example, the amount of time it takes for us to
resolve all of the current and future lawsuits, claims and
investigations that relate to the Line 901 incident could turn out
to be significantly longer than we have assumed, and as a result
the costs we incur for legal services could be significantly
higher than we have estimated. In addition, with respect to fines
and penalties, the ultimate amount of any fines and penalties
assessed against us depends on a wide variety of factors, many of
which are not estimable at this time. Where fines and penalties
are probable and estimable, we have included them in our estimate,
although such estimates could turn out to be wrong. Accordingly,
our assumptions and estimates may turn out to be inaccurate and
our total costs could turn out to be materially higher; therefore,
we can provide no assurance that we will not have to accrue
significant additional costs in the future with respect to the
Line 901 incident.

"As of March 31, 2016, we had a remaining undiscounted gross
liability of $104 million related to this event, the majority of
which is presented as a current liability in "Accounts payable and
accrued liabilities" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.
We maintain insurance coverage, which is subject to certain
exclusions and deductibles, in the event of such environmental
liabilities. Subject to such exclusions and deductibles, we
believe that our coverage is adequate to cover the current
estimated total emergency response and clean-up costs, claims
settlement costs and remediation costs and we believe that this
coverage is also adequate to cover any potential increase in the
estimates for these costs that exceed the amounts currently
identified. Through March 31, 2016, we had collected, subject to
customary reservations, $112 million out of the approximate $186
million of release costs that we believe are probable of recovery
from insurance carriers, net of deductibles. Therefore, as of
March 31, 2016, we have recognized a receivable of approximately
$74 million for the portion of the release costs that we believe
is probable of recovery from insurance, net of deductibles and
amounts already collected. A majority of this receivable has been
recognized as a current asset in "Trade accounts receivable and
other receivables, net" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheet. We have substantially completed the clean-up and
remediation efforts, excluding long-term site monitoring
activities; however, we expect to make payments for additional
costs associated with restoration and monitoring of the area, as
well as natural resource damage assessment, legal, professional
and regulatory costs, in addition to fines and penalties, during
future periods.


RED WING: "Zajac" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Withheld Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Zajac, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Red Wing, LLC, Cecil Crowley,
individually, Dianne Crowley, individually and John Doe 1-10,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01856-PMD (D.S.C., June
8, 2016), seeks damages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and
costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Red's is a South Carolina limited liability company maintaining
offices and agents in the county of Charleston, state of South
Carolina and operates a restaurant "Red's Ice House" owned by
Cecil Crowley and Dianne Crowley. Zajac was employed by Red's as a
server and bartender and claims to be paid below minimum wage
rates and that her tips with illegally withheld.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Motion to Dismiss Complaint Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Capital Corp. 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's motion
to dismiss anamended complaint remains pending.

In September 2015, Daren Levin filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 2, 2015 and August 4, 2015.  In November 2015,
the Court appointed Douglas Drees as the lead plaintiff in the
action, and thereafter entered a stipulation and order directing
the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint.  In February
2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that
the Company and certain of its officers and directors materially
misrepresented certain risks of its commercial loan portfolio and
its processes and controls for assessing the quality of its
portfolio.  Based on these allegations, the amended complaint
asserts claims for violation of the securities laws and seeks a
variety of relief, including unspecified monetary damages as well
as costs and attorneys' fees.  The Company believes the amended
complaint is without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously. In April 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, which remains pending.


SAMI'S PITA: "Alhassan" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
FERAS ALHASSAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAMI'S PITA BAKERY, INC. a Florida
Corporation, and SAMI CHEBAB, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:16-cv-01490-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla., June 9, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiff was hired as a baker in August, 2015 and was paid an
hourly rate. The Plaintiff worked overtime, but Defendants
allegedly did not pay overtime pursuant to the FLSA.

Sami's Pita is a bakery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, #600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Hall" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Holly Hall, Paul Danner, Valerie Simo, Joyce Kuhl and
Elaine Browne filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their
lawsuit styled Holly Hall, et al. v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00660-CAB-RBB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 30, 2016, the Hon.
Cathy Ann Bencivengo dismissed the Case after finding that the
Plaintiffs failed to address the problems identified this past
December when the Court granted them leave to amend their
complaint.

The consolidated complaint began as three separate class actions
brought against SeaWorld by consumers, who bought tickets to
attend the Company's parks in San Diego, San Antonio and Orlando.
The Plaintiffs claimed that had they known the theme park
mistreated its orcas they would have never purchased tickets.

The appellate case is captioned as Holly Hall, et al. v. Seaworld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 16-55845, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Holly Hall, Paul Danner, Valerie Simo, Joyce
Kuhl and Elaine Browne are represented by:

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          Shayne Christopher Stevenson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  robl@hbsslaw.com
                  shaynes@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Ave.
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., is represented
by:

          Rebecca E. Bazan, Esq.
          John Morgan Simpson, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20001-4501
          Telephone: (202) 662-0200
          E-mail: rebecca.bazan@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  john.simpson@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Gabriel, Esq.
          Lawrence Y. Iser, Esq.
          Kristen Louise Spanier, Esq.
          KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISERKUMP & ALDISERT LLP
          808 Wilshire Boulevard
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 566-9800
          Facsimile: (310) 566-9869
          E-mail: ggabriel@kwikalaw.com
                  liser@kwikalaw.com
                  kspanier@kwikalaw.com

               - and -

          Michelle C. Pardo, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          801 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
          Washington, DC 20004-2615
          Telephone: (202) 662-4553
          Facsimile: (202) 662-4643
          E-mail: michelle.pardo@nortonrosefulbright.com


SEVERN TRENT: Lowrimore Appeals E.D. Okla. Ruling to 10th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tara Lowrimore filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit titled Lowrimore v. Severn Trent
Environmental, et al., Case No. 6:15-CV-00475-RAW, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma -
Muskogee.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25, 2016, Judge
Ronald A. White granted Severn Trent's motion to dismiss the Case.
A full-text copy of Judge White's May 16, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/GQpuhV from Leagle.com.

The Action was brought on behalf of "a plaintiff class consisting
of all persons and entities residing in and/or located in the city
of Hugo, Oklahoma, and all surrounding area which are serviced by
the Hugo Water Treatment Plant operated under the contract between
Severn Trent and the Hugo Municipal Authority."  The petition
sought "actual and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of
$10,000," restitution and injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as Lowrimore v. Severn Trent
Environmental, et al., Case No. 16-7047, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Tara Lowrimore is represented by:

          Billy Don Griffin, Esq.
          Jon Williford, Esq.
          GRIFFIN, REYNOLDS & ASSOCIATES
          210 South East 89th Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73149
          Telephone: (405) 721-9500
          E-mail: billy@griffinreynoldslaw.com
                  jon@griffinreynoldslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc., is
represented by:

          Timila S. Rother, Esq.
          Erin Potter Sullenger, Esq.
          Mary Ellen Ternes, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY
          324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-7700
          Facsimile: (405) 272-5226
          E-mail: timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com
                  erinpotter.sullenger@crowedunlevy.com
                  maryellen.ternes@crowedunlevy.com


SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL: "Shelton" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Arrion L. Shelton, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. South Shore
Hospital, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06011 (N.D. Ill., June 8,
2016), seeks to recover back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest
and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

South Shore operates a hospital where Plaintiff worked as a nurse.
Shelton claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John William Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 853-1450


SUFFOLK COUNTY: "Smith" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
David Smith, Dawn Ruggiero and Jodi Pagel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. County of
Suffolk, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02951 (E.D. N.Y., June 8,
2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Plaintiffs worked for the Suffolk County Police Department as
Public Safety Dispatchers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
     NEIL H. GREENBERG AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 314
     Westbury, NY 11590
     Tel: (516) 228-5100


TARGET CORP: Just Appeals Minnesota Court Ruling to 8th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas J. Just filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit titled Thomas J. Just v. Target Corporation, Case No.
0:15-cv-04117-DWF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota - Minneapolis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 3,
2016, District Court Judge Donovan Frank dismissed the Action by
granting the Target's motion to dismiss earlier in May.

The Plaintiff alleges that the popular retail chain included
"impermissible" and "extraneous" information in a background check
disclosure.  Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, if an employer
intends to obtain a report about a job applicant, the employer
must notify the applicant.  Such notification must be in a
separate document without any unrelated information.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas J. Just v. Target
Corporation, Case No. 16-2708, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Christopher Daniel Jozwiak, Esq.
          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 S Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          E-mail: cjozwiak@baillonthome.com
                  sjwanta@baillonthome.com

Defendant-Appellee Target Corporation is represented by:

          Katie Connolly, Esq.
          Donald Marion Lewis, Esq.
          Sarah B.C. Riskin, Esq.
          NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS, PA
          400 One Financial Plaza
          120 S. Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 305-7500
          E-mail: kconnolly@nilanjohnson.com
                  dlewis@nilanjohnson.com
                  sriskin@nilanjohnson.com


TATE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Court Grants Bid to Substitute Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffie McNeal, Jessie Mae Carter, Pearlene McGhee, Adell Davis,
Timothy Lee, and Minnie Mae Moore filed on April 27, 1970, a
complaint on behalf of their children, also named in the
complaint, alleging that the Tate County School District
(District) and its Board of Education were operating an
unconstitutional dual education system. The same plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint with the same substantive allegations on June
8, 1970.

On August 4, 1970, United States District Judge Orma R. Smith
entered an order enjoining the District from operating a dual
system and directing the operation of a "unitary school system as
required by the Supreme Court of the United States."

The desegregation case is before the Court on: (1) the motion of
Tate County School District to expedite review of its motion to
modify attendance zone lines; (2) the motion of Jessie Edwards,
and a group of other concerned citizens and parents of children
attending schools within the Tate County School District, for an
enlargement of time to respond to the motion to modify; and (3)
the motion for substitution of certain parents of children who are
current students in the Tate County School District.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 14, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/6UMSRz from Leagle.com, District Judge Debra M.
Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi granted the motion for substitution,
concluding that injustice would occur if substitution was not
allowed and that the proposed plaintiffs identified in the motion
to substitute have standing to pursue the action.  The Court
denied as moot the motion for intervention because the motion is
untimely, and because the proposed plaintiffs do not have standing
because they have failed to identify an injurious and remediable
action of the district and because the proposed modification would
not injure them.  The Court also denied as moot the motion for
extension finding it prudent to supplement the record on these
topics by requesting additional briefing from the District and
Plaintiffs, reserving the right to set the matter for hearing if
the Court deems such necessary.  The motion to expedite is granted
in part as appropriate as to altering attendance zones in the case
and denied as impossible as to the time for briefing expended on
the other motions.

The case is captioned, KELLY McNEAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TATE
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-04748-
TEH (N.D. Miss.).

Tate County School District, et al. are represented by:

Jamie Ferguson Jacks, Esq.
JACKS LUCIANO, P.A.
150 N Sharpe Ave,
Cleveland, MS 38732
Tel: (662)843-6171

     - and -

John Thomas Lamar, III, Esq.
Leon E. Hannaford, Jr., Esq.
John Thomas Lamar, Jr., Esq.
LAMAR & HANNAFORD, P.A.
214 S Ward St,
Senatobia, MS 38668
Tel: (662)562-6537


TERRAPIN ENERGY: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM F. ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TERRAPIN ENERGY SERVICES,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01346-CBS (D. Col., June 3, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff seeks:

     a. an Order certifying this class action under Rule 23 for
the purposes of the claims under New Mexico law;

     b. an Order certifying this case as a collective action for
the purposes of the FLSA claims;

     c. an Order finding Defendant liable for violations of state
and federal wage laws with respect to Plaintiff and all FLSA and
NMMWA Class Members covered by this case;

     d. a Judgment awarding all unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
treble damages, to Plaintiff and all FLSA and New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act (NMMWA) Class Members covered by this case;

     e. a Judgment awarding Plaintiff and all FLSA and NMMWA Class
Members covered by this case their costs of this action;

     f. a Judgment awarding Plaintiff and all FLSA and NMMWA Class
Members covered by this case their attorneys' fees;

     g. a Judgment awarding Plaintiff and all FLSA and NMMWA Class
Members covered by this case pre- and post-judgment interest at
the highest rates allowed by law; and

     h. For all such other and further relief as may be necessary
and appropriate.

The Plaintiff was typically scheduled to work 12 hour shifts for
weeks at a time. Regardless of the actual amount of hours worked,
Plaintiff never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
in a single work week.

Terrapin is an oil field services company providing directional
drilling services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson
          Lindsay R. Itkin
          Andrew Dunlap
          Jessica M. Bresler
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND,
          BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: 713-751 0025
          Facsimile: 713-751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


TESCO CORPORATION: Arbitrators Dismissed Employees' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Tesco 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 arbitrators have
dismissed the employees' claims with prejudice.

The Company participated in an arbitration, based on the Company's
dispute resolution process, with 38 current and former employees
(the "Employees") who had worked or are working in various states.
The Employees claimed that they were owed unpaid overtime wages
including liquidated damages under the Federal Labor Standards Act
and the applicable state laws of various states, including New
Mexico and Colorado. The case was assigned to a three-judge panel
of arbitrators.

On October 22, 2015, an arbitration panel agreed that the case
could proceed as a class action. The Company settled the matter
with the Employees through a signed settlement agreement. The
Company submitted a proposed dismissal order to the arbitrators
and the arbitrators dismissed the Employees' claims with prejudice
on May 3, 2016.

At March 31, 2016 and as of the date of this report, the Company
maintains an estimated reserve for potential exposure.


TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Appeal Ongoing
-----------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, 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 plaintiffs' appeal in
a class action lawsuit remains pending.

In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint made claims against Tesla and
our CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the
basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk
made false and/or misleading representations and omissions,
including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013
and November 17, 2013.

On September 26, 2014, the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla
and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and
thereafter issued a formal written order to that effect. The
plaintiffs have appealed from the trial court's order, and that
appeal is pending.

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


TEXAS: Inmates' Amended Class Certification Bid Okayed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned,
KEITH COLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. D067687 (S.D. Tex.).

The named Plaintiffs are six inmates who live in the Wallace Pack
Unit, a medical and geriatric prison operated by the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Plaintiffs claim that the
conditions inside the Pack Unit -- in particular, the lack of
climate control leading to the prisoners' prolonged exposure to
extreme heat during the summer months -- violate their Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment. They also bring claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that TDCJ
has refused to make reasonable accommodations for prisoners with
disabilities that render them especially vulnerable to the effects
of extreme heat.

Plaintiffs seek to certify one General Class and two subclasses.
An evidentiary hearing was held on the matter on May 27, 2016,
June 1, 2016, and June 2, 2016, during which time the Court heard
from four expert witnesses.

In his Memorandum and Order dated June 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/t698DP from Leagle.com, Judge Ellison concluded the
Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.

David Bailey, Marvin Ray Yates, Keith Cole and Nicholas Diaz are
represented by Wallis Anne Nader, Esq. --
wallis@texascivilrightsproject.com -- James C. Harrington, Esq. --
james@texascivilrightsproject.com -- and  Nicholas Krause, Esq. --
nicholas@texascivilrightsproject.com -- TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS
PROJECT, Scott Charles Medlock, Esq. -- smedlock@edwardslawok.com
-- and Jeffrey S. Edwards, Esq. -- medwards@edwardslawok.com --
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM

They are also represented by:

Brian Rolland McGiverin, Esq.
DIETZ, LAWRENCE & MCGIVERIN
2221 Hancock Dr
Austin, TX 78756
Tel: (512)387-0718

Jackie Brannum, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Ray
Wilson and Fred Wallace are represented by Andrew D. Pennebaker,
Esq. -- dpennebaker@reynoldsfrizzell.com -- Jeremy L. Doyle, Esq.
-- doyle@reynoldsfrizzell.com -- and Nathan M. Smith, Esq. --
nsmith@reynoldsfrizzell.com -- REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP, James C.
Harrington, Esq. -- james@texascivilrightsproject.com -- TEXAS
CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT -- and Scott Charles Medlock, Esq. --
smedlock@edwardslawok.com -- and Jeffrey S. Edwards, Esq. --
medwards@edwardslawok.com -- THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM

They are also represented by:

Michael C. Singley, Esq.
SINGLEY LAW FIRM
4131 Spicewood Springs Rd #3
Austin, TX 78759
Tel: (512)334-4302

     - and -

Brian Rolland McGiverin, Esq.
DIETZ, LAWRENCE & MCGIVERIN
2221 Hancock Dr,
Austin, TX 78756
Tel: (512)387-0718

Brad Livingston, Roberto M. Herrera and Texas Department of
Criminal Justice are represented by:

Amanda Marie Kates, Esq.
Cynthia Burton, Esq.
Derek Josef Kammerlocher, Esq.
Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Esq.
Kevin Andrew Moczygemba, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Tel: (202)353-1555

     - and -

Matthew J. Greer, Esq.
Patricia M. Tulinski, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
200 N Broadway Ave # 200
Tyler, TX 75702
Tel: (903)595-6900


TREMCO INC: Slippery Rock Must Amend Class Suit, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted, in part, a
motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations in the
case captioned, SLIPPERY ROCK AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TREMCO,
INC., WEATHERPROOFING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and RPM INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-1020 (W.D. Pa.).

On August 4, 2015, plaintiff Slippery Rock Area School District
filed a diversity action against defendants Tremco, Inc. (Tremco),
Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc. (Weatherproofing), and RPM
International, Inc. On December 23, 2015, after defendants filed a
motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations,
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

On January 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a second amended class action
complaint for count I: fraudulent misrepresentation under
Pennsylvania common law; count II: intentional and/or negligent
misrepresentation under Pennsylvania common law; count III:
fraudulent concealment under Pennsylvania common law; and count
IV: negligence under Pennsylvania common law.

In the motion, the defendants argue plaintiff failed to plausibly
allege claims for fraudulent concealment and negligence and its
class allegations are insufficient, and, therefore, should be
stricken from the second amended complaint.

In her Opinion dated June 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/wnMW13 from Leagle.com, Judge Conti held that
Plaintiff in the second amended complaint does not plausibly
allege that plaintiff and defendants had a fiduciary relationship
or any additional facts that plausibly show defendants' alleged
omissions with respect to the quality of their products was
"extreme" or "shocking" and gave rise to a duty to disclose to
plaintiff that the products were not superior or premium. With
respect to the alleged high failure rates of defendants' roofing
products, the allegations in the second amended complaint are not
substantively different from the allegations in the first amended
complaint.

The court will grant defendants' motion to strike class
allegations and plaintiff's class allegations will be stricken
from the second amended complaint. Plaintiff may seek leave of
court to file a third amended complaint that is consistent with
the rules of law discussed in the opinion.

SLIPPERY ROCK AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT are represented by D. Aaron
Rihn, Esq. -- ahpierce@aaronpiercelaw.com -- PEIRCE LAW OFFICES,
N. Scott Carpenter, Esq. -- scarpenter@cstriallaw.com -- and
Rebecca E. Bell-Stanton, Esq. -- rstanton@cstriallaw.com --
CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER PC

TREMCO, INC., et al. are represented by James M. Jones, Esq. --
jmjones@jonesday.com -- Roy A. Powell, Esq. --
rapowell@jonesday.com -- Brian J. Murray, Esq. --
bjmurray@jonesday.com -- David Michael Belczyk, Esq. --
dmbelczyk@jonesday.com -- Katelyn M. Matscherz, Esq. --
kmmatscherz@jonesday.com -- and Meghan S. Bean, Esq. --
msbean@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


TRI BORO: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Gomez, Carlos Sanango, individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Tri Boro
Waterproofing Inc., A. (first name unknown) Mahmood, Mohammad
Iqbal, "John" (first name unknown) Iqbal, John Doe and Jane Doe
No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02953 (E.D.N.Y., June
8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, compensatory, punitive,
and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaints, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Tri Boro is an interior construction company with its principal
place of business at Long Island City, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


TRUECAR INC: Still Defends NY Lanham Act Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
TRUECAR, 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 a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation").

On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District
of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the
NY Lanham Act Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous
automotive dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar
platform, alleges that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as
well as various state laws prohibiting unfair competition and
deceptive acts or practices related to the Company's advertising
and promotional activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief
in addition to over $250 million in damages as a result of the
alleged diversion of customers from the plaintiffs' dealerships to
TrueCar Certified Dealers. On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an
answer to the complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint, and on July 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. On January 6, 2016, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to some, but
not all, of the advertising and promotional activities challenged
in the amended complaint. The Company believes that the portions
of the amended complaint that survived the Company's motion to
dismiss are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend
itself in this matter.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of
March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss
is probable or reasonably estimable," the Company said.


TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Federal Securities Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
TRUECAR, 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 an appeal in the
Federal Securities Litigation remains pending.

On May 27, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (the "Federal Securities Litigation") by Satyabrata
Mahapatra naming the Company and two other individuals not
affiliated with the Company as defendants. On June 15, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and Correction purporting to
name Scott Painter, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer,
and Michael Guthrie, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as
individual defendants in lieu of the two individual defendants
named in the complaint.

On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. As
amended, the complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation seeks
an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees
based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and
performance. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that
during the putative class period, the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's business practices violated unfair competition and
deceptive trade practice laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY
Lanham Act Litigation); (ii) the Company acts as a dealer and
broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in
violation of various states' laws that govern car sales (i.e., the
issues raised in the CNCDA Litigation); and (iii) as a result of
the above, the Company's registration statements, prospectuses,
quarterly and annual reports, financial statements, SEC filings,
press releases, and other statements and documents were materially
false and misleading at times relevant to the amended complaint
and putative class period. The amended complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from May 16, 2014 to July 23, 2015.

On October 19, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On December 9, 2015, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its
entirety. On January 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without
merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of
March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss
is probable or reasonably estimable," the Company said.


TRUECAR INC: Initial Status Conference in "Rose" Case Rescheduled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRUECAR, 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 initial status
conference in the lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose will be rescheduled
for another date.

On December 23, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the
"California Consumer Class Action"). The complaint asserts claims
for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar
to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA
Litigation. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages,
interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers
defined as "[a]ll California consumers who purchased an automobile
by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable
statute of limitations."

On January 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying all
proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference,
which was previously scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16,
2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of
that reassignment, the initial status conference was not held on
April 13, 2016, and will be rescheduled for another date. The
Company believes that the complaint is without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of
March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss
is probable or reasonably estimable," the Company said.


TVC OPUS I: Settlement in "Siegal" Suit Has Preliminarily Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted preliminary
approval the settlement agreement in the case captioned, STEVEN
SIEGAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. G. THOMAS GAMBLE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03570-RS (N.D. Cal.).

In his Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/33nK89
from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that the Settlement agreement
meets all the prerequisites of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for class certification. The Court preliminary
certified a class of "All persons and entities who purchased
securities issued by or on behalf of TVC Opus I Drilling Program,
L.P., directly or indirectly, personally or through aggregators
(the Settlement Class). Excluded from the Settlement Class are all
defendants in the Siegal Action, including their parent companies
and subsidiaries, and members of their nuclear families, and any
member of the judiciary presiding over this action."

The Court appointed CPT Group, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator, Edward S. Zusman, Kevin K. Eng, and Markun Zusman
Freniere & Compton LLP as Counsel for the Settlement Class, and
Steven Siegal, James Rybicki, David Groblebe, individually and as
General Partner of Grobco II, and Christian Wipf as Settlement
Class Representatives. The parties are directed to file all papers
in support of the application for final approval of the
settlement, and/or any papers in response to any valid and timely
objections no later than September 15, 2016.

Steven Siegal, James Rybicki, David Groblebe and Christian Wipf
are represented by Edward Scott Zusman, Esq. -- ezusman@mzclaw.com
-- and Kevin K. Eng, Esq. -- keng@mzclaw.com
-- MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP -- and John R. Fabry, Esq.
-- peter.fabry@luther-lawfirm.com -- FABRY LAW FIRM

G. Thomas Gamble is represented by James Mark Neudecker, Esq. -
jneudecker@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP

Loren J. Miller, Henry Lowenstein and Paul W. Bateman are
represented by Simona Gurevich Strauss, Esq. --
gstrauss@stblaw.com -- and Stephen Patrick Blake, Esq. --
sblake@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER BARTLETT LLP


U.S. WELL SERVICES: "Decker" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN DECKER and DAVID RUPP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. WELL SERVICES,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:2016-cv-00755 (S.D. Fla., June 8,
2016), seeks under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act,
the Ohio Constitution and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA):

     a. designation of this action as an FLSA collection action.

     b. certification of the Ohio Class as a class action, and the
appointment of Plaintiff Decker and his counsel to represent the
Members of the Ohio Class.

     c. certification of the Pennsylvania Class as a class action
pursuant and the appointment of Plaintiff Rupp and his counsel to
represent the members of the Pennsylvania Class.

     d. a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
herein are unlawful under the FLSA, PMWA, OMFWSA.

     e. an injunction requiring Defendant to cease its unlawful
practices under, and comply with, the PMWA and OMFWSA.

     f. an award of unpaid wages for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours a week at a rate of time and one-half the regular rate of
pay due under the FLSA, PMWA and OMFWSA.

     g. an award of liquidated damages and/or punitive damages as
a result of Defendant's willful failure to pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

     h. an award of damages pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code of an
amount equal to six per cent of the amount of the claim still
unpaid and not in contest or disputed or two hundred dollars

     i. an award of statutory damages.

     j. an award of damages representing the employers' share of
FICA, FUTA, state unemployment insurance, and any other required
employment taxes.

     k. an award of prejudgment and post judgment interest.

     l. an award of costs and expense of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert feeds.

     m. such other relief as this Court deem just and proper.

U.S. Well provides well stimulation services to the upstream oil
and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219 1918
          Telephone: (412) 281 7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470 3520

               - and -

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


UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for January 2017 in "Morgate" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 trial is scheduled
for January 2017 in the case, Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et
al.

UPS and its subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in
Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in the Los
Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of
all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc.
franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that
UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to
the class about the market tests that were conducted before
offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS
Store. Trial is scheduled for January 2017.

                           *     *     *

United Parcel Service, 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, also provided updates the
case by AFMS LLC.

The Company said, "In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a
lawsuit filed in federal court in the Central District of
California in August 2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and
FedEx violated U.S. antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to
negotiate with third-party negotiators retained by shippers and by
individually imposing policies that prevent shippers from using
such negotiators. UPS and FedEx have moved for summary judgment.
The Court granted these motions on April 30, 2015, entered
judgment in favor of UPS and FedEx, and dismissed the case. On May
21, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company also said, "The Antitrust Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") has an open civil investigation of
our policies and practices for dealing with third-party
negotiators.  We have cooperated with this investigation. We deny
any liability with respect to these matters and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that
prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any,
that may result from these matters including: (1) the DOJ
investigation is pending; (2) the Court granted our motion for
summary judgment; and (3) plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal.
Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible
loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to
determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity."


UNITED PARCEL: Ontario Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 one outstanding class action lawsuit in
Ontario.

The Company said, "In Canada, four purported class-action cases
were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007)
and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate
disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services
provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September
2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the
plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the
Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that
decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted
and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the
2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the
motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended
that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been
dismissed. We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the
one outstanding case in Ontario."

"There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to
estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and
believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and
(2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be
important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly,
at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range
of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether
such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over 2.0L TSI Engines Tensioner Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
UMAR ELLAHIE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, AUDI
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, and AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03319-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., June 8, 2016), seeks
redress for Defendants' violations of California's consumer fraud
statutes and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in relation to 2.0L
TSI Engines Tensioner Defect.

The Plaintiff also seeks to recover monetary costs associated with
attempting to repair such defect, and recovery for Defendants'
breach of implied warranty, and common law fraud.

The case arose from Defendants' failure, despite their
longstanding knowledge of a material design defect, to disclose to
Plaintiff and other consumers that the Class Vehicles' 2.0L TSI
engines contain timing chain tensioners that are defective and
fail prematurely (Tensioner Defect). The Tensioner Defect can
cause engine failure while the Class Vehicles are in operation at
any time and under any driving condition or speed. This exposes
the driver and occupants of the Class Vehicles, as well as others
who share the road with them, to an increased risk of accident,
injury, or death.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Paul Scarlato, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C
          Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
          161 Washington Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342 0700
          Facsimile: (484) 580 8729
          E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com


WASHINGTON EMPLOYEES CREDIT: Court Narrows "Wodja" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part
Defendant Washington State Employees Credit Union's (WSECU) motion
to dismiss in the case captioned, TODD WODJA, individually and on
behalf of all other individually situated, Plaintiff, v.
WASHINGTON STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. C15-5693 BHS (W.D. Wash.).

On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff Todd Wodja (Wodja) filed a class
action complaint against WSECU asserting claims for breach of
contract, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act
(CPA), RCW Chapter 19.86, unjust enrichment/restitution, money had
and received, negligence, and Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
According to the complaint, Wodja alleges that he was improperly
charged overdraft fees.

Wodja opened an account at WSECU. The account came with a debit
card and access to automatic teller machines (ATMs).

WSECU contends, and Wodja does not dispute, that the parties
entered into a membership and account agreement. In addition,
WSECU sent Wodja a separate, two-page document conveying
information regarding WSECU's discretionary overdraft privilege
policy and WSECU's overdraft services disclosure.

WSECU seeks to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In his Order dated June 9, 2016 available at https://is.gd/hNzqad
from Leagle.com, Judge Settle granted the motion to dismiss as to
unjust enrichment claim because Wodja's breach of contract claim
is based on interpretation of the contract, not impossibility or
failure of the relevant contract; and denied as to breach of
contract claim because Wodja has alleged sufficient facts under a
cognizable legal theory.

Todd Wodja is represented by A. Richard Dykstra, Esq. --
jebb@techsectorlaw.com -- and Richard H. Friedman, Esq. --
rickfriedman@hotmail.com -- FRIEDMAN RUBIN, Eddie Jae K. Kim, Esq.
-- jkk@mccunewright.com -- and Richard D. McCune, Esq. --
rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCUNE WRIGHT, LLP, Taras Kick Kihiczak,
Esq. -- and Thomas Segal, Esq. -- THE KICK LAW FIRM

Washington State Employees Credit Union is represented by:

John T. Drake, Esq.
Tim J. Filer, Esq.
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
618 W Riverside Ave #300
Spokane, WA 99201
Tel: (509)777-1600


WEB.COM GROUP: Calif. Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Web.com 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 putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on February 2, 2016 alleging that the Company
violated the California Unfair Competition Law, the California
Data Breach Act and the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing arising from the data breach discovered and disclosed by
the Company in August 2015, and seeking unspecified monetary
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other relief was
voluntarily dismissed on March 4, 2016.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Defending Against "Roberts" Case in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the case, Raymond Roberts v. Weight Watchers
International, Inc.

On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of
contract and violations of the New York General Business Law. On
February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court, Sothern District of New York. On March 18,
2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that, as
a result of the temporary glitches in the Company's website and
app in November and December 2015, the Company has: (1) breached
its Subscription Agreement with its OnlinePlus members; and (2)
engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section
350 of the New York General Business Law. The plaintiff is seeking
unspecified actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as his
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2016. The Company
believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.


WILLIS TOWERS: Plaintiffs Seek $1.7 Million in Attorneys' Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 in
the case, In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation,
plaintiffs have filed a petition for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses, requesting an aggregate fee and expense award of at
least $1.7 million.

Five putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware,
captioned New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v.
Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9,
2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB
(filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension
Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015),
Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31,
2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB
(filed on August 24, 2015).  The Stein action was voluntarily
dismissed on July 28, 2015.  These complaints were filed by
purported stockholders of Towers Watson on behalf of a putative
class comprised of all Towers Watson stockholders. The complaints
sought, among other things, to enjoin the Merger, and generally
alleged that Towers Watson's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Towers Watson stockholders by agreeing to merge Towers
Watson with Willis through an inadequate and unfair process, which
led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to
unfair deal protection devices.  The complaints also alleged that
Willis and the Merger Sub formed for purposes of consummating the
Merger aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by Towers Watson directors.

On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the New Jersey Building
Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, City of Atlanta Firefighters'
Pension Fund, and Cordell actions (the Mills action had not yet
been filed) and any other actions then pending or thereafter filed
arising out of the same issues of fact under the caption In re
Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
11270-CB.  On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action and in Mills filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which, among other things, added claims for alleged
misstatements and omissions from a preliminary proxy statement and
prospectus for the Merger dated August 27, 2015.

On September 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction, which
motions plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew on October 19, 2015.  On
December 14, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On April 1, 2016, the court
consolidated the Mills action into the consolidated action.

On April 18, 2016, the court dismissed the consolidated action as
moot, set a briefing schedule for plaintiffs' application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and
scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' fee and expense application for
June 28, 2016. On April 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, requesting an aggregate
fee and expense award of at least $1.7 million.

Based on all of the information to date, the Company is currently
unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss.  The defendants intend to vigorously oppose
plaintiff's fee and expense application.

Willis Towers Watson provides both specialized risk management
advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to
clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities,
and services to small, medium and large corporations through its
retail operations.


WILLIS TOWERS: Inks Settlement Over Stanford Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 has entered into a settlement in principle relating to the
Stanford litigation matter.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

The 13 actions are as follows:

* Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate,
among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative
Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').
On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the court
issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing
and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-
appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19,
2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18,
2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the
Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February
26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.
On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on
June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the
motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.
On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

     * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-
22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings
plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on
behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American
Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and
Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to
be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

     * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis
Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in
the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed
individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and
common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the
parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of
those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of
dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

     * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law
and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than
$300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009,
certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i)
removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a
final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern
District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert
to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until
further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the
court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs
appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5,
2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in
the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below,
and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24,
2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on
September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint
in Rupert.

     * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion
to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the
Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint
in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings
plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.

     * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML
of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August
8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer
of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is
currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with
the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the
court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court
remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed
the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and
the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.
Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

     * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed
on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013,
Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed
MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of
Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to
stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether
it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for
consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related
actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur
in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the
Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with
the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the
parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris
County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court
(in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in
Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered'
by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

     * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were
filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis
of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1)
Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et
al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford
investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million;
(2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of
64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of
two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc.
removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on
June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related
actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order
sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June
11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four
actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013,
the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of
the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any
opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition
having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer
to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. We
believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are likely
to be reinstated. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints in Ranni or Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15,
2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015,
the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-
Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On
August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.

     * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the
Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado,
Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by
Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for
the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford
Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii)
on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors
against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC
allege claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of
collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015,
the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

As discussed above, on March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and
Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-
trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that
stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-
trial purposes under Rule 42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In
the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and we
have therefore increased our provisions by $50 million.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of
these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Settlement-in-Principle.  On March 31, 2016, the Company entered
into a settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term
Sheet, relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company has
agreed to the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction,
burden, expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In
particular, if the settlement and the related bar orders are
approved by the Court and become effective, the Company (a newly-
combined firm) would be able to conduct itself with the bar
orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged
to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the
Settlement Term Sheet provides that the parties understand and
agree that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the
Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing
with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation.
Specifically, the parties to the Settlement Term Sheet are Ralph
S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the
'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated
entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official
Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula
Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel
Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc. and Willis of
Colorado, Inc. (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand.
Under the terms of the Settlement Term Sheet, the parties have
agreed in principle to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice
actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future
claims arising from or related to Stanford. If the settlement,
including the bar orders described below, is approved by the Court
and is not subject to further appeal, Willis North America Inc.
will make a one-time cash payment of $120 million to the Receiver
to be distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims
recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in
place at the time the payment is made. The Company expects the
Actions to be stayed pending final approval of the settlement
agreement and bar orders. The timing of any final decision is
subject to the discretion of the Court and any appeal, and the
Court may decide not to approve the settlement.

The Settlement Term Sheet also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford-
related litigation described above, and not just the Actions,
including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought
in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a
condition of the settlement. The settlement is also subject to the
execution of a definitive settlement agreement and other related
documentation, notice to Stanford's investor claimants, and
approval by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

Willis Towers Watson provides both specialized risk management
advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to
clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities,
and services to small, medium and large corporations through its
retail operations.


WISCONSIN: Court Keeps Order Dismissing Suit v. Corrections Dept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and dismissed the action for failure to
prosecute in the case captioned, ROBERT L. TATUM, Plaintiff, v.
EDWARD WALL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-1435 (E.D. Wis.).

On May 5, 2016, the Court issued an order screening the
plaintiff's class action complaint. The Court declined to certify
a class because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se.  Next, the
Court determined that the plaintiff could not proceed on his claim
against the 41 defendants alleging the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections' custom of a "Blue Code of Silence" was the moving
force behind his allegations because the plaintiff's conspiracy
claim was implausible. Lastly, the Court found that the
plaintiff's complaint against the 41 defendants violated Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20 insofar as it advanced
unrelated claims against unrelated defendants. The Court directed
the plaintiff to file an amended complaint incorporating only
properly related claims if he wanted to proceed and advised the
plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint might result
in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.

In the motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff contends that the
Court erred because, (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over this
action since the plaintiff consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636; (2) the Court erroneously
determined that the plaintiff's complaint allegations were
implausible; (3) the Court directed the plaintiff to file an
amended complaint and stated that if he failed to file an amended
complaint the case might be dismissed for failure to prosecute;
and (4) the Court denied class certification based on the
plaintiff's pro se status.

In his Decision and Order dated June 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/W2cqSo from Leagle.com, Judge Randa held that the
plaintiff has not shown that the Court's May 5, 2016, order
contains a manifest error of law and ordered the plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint on or before July 7, 2016.


WORLD WRESTLING: Dispositive Motions Due Aug. 1 in Singleton Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, 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 in the case
involving Singleton and LoGrasso, discovery was to be completed by
June 1, 2016 and dispositive motions filed by August 1, 2016.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  This complaint was amended on
January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed,
and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic
brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers.

On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut.  Without addressing the merits of the
Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to
Connecticut on June 25, 2015.  The plaintiffs filed an objection
to such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015 a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.  On
February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-
selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs
and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a
scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to
cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on June 15, 2015.  On June 29, 2015, WWE moved
to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.  The Company again moved
to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection
clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the
California court granted on July 10, 2015.

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual,
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including
ordering medical monitoring.  The Haynes and McCullough cases
purport to be class actions.  On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was
filed in Tennessee state court and subsequently removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next of kin to her
deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal
representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased,
v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  A similar suit was filed
in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
entitled Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew
Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that
the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.  WWE
moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-
selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts.

On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and
Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015
and December 21, 2015, respectively.

Lastly, on June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment
action in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.  On September
21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint,
which the Company opposed.  The Court previously ordered a stay of
discovery in all cases pending decisions on the motions to
dismiss.

On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and
permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving
Singleton and LoGrasso.  Such discovery is to be completed by June
1, 2016 and dispositive motions filed by August 1, 2016.

On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to
dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.
The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and
McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit
except for the claim of fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the
Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the
motions to dismiss.  On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion
for reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to
dismiss the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso
lawsuit and, on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham
lawsuit.

On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the
Haynes and McCullough lawsuits.  On April 27, 2016, the Company
moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit.  The Company intends to
continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.


WORLD WRESTLING: No Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of "Ganues" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, 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 plaintiffs in
the cases by Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale and by Curtis
Swanson did not appeal the dismissal of their cases.

On July 26, 2014, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A.
Barrios, alleging violations of federal securities laws based on
certain statements relating to the negotiation of WWE's domestic
television license.  The complaint seeks certain unspecified
damages.

A nearly identical lawsuit was filed one month later entitled
Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon and George A. Barrios.  Both lawsuits are purported
securities class actions subject to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

On September 23-24, five putative plaintiffs filed motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff and to consolidate the two cases pursuant
to the PSLRA.  Following a hearing on October 29, 2014, the Court
issued an order dated November 5, 2014 appointing Mohsin Ansari as
lead plaintiff and consolidating the two actions.

On January 5, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Among other things, the amended complaint adds Stephanie McMahon
Levesque and Michelle D. Wilson as named defendants.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety and, on March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motion,
dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety and ordering that
judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs did
not appeal.


WU'S PANDA: "Landa" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIAS HERNANDEZ LANDA, and RUBEN GALVAN MERENO, the Plaintiffs, v.
XIONG WU and QI YONG CHEN, and WU'S PANDA HUT RESTAURANT, LLC
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00691 (E.D. Wisc., June 8, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (FLSA) and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Galvan a flat rate
of $1,900 each month for the initial eight months of his
employment, and subsequently paid him $2,200 each month,
regardless of the number of hours worked. The Defendants did not
pay Plaintiffs time and one-half premium compensation for each
hour worked over forty hours in a workweek.

Wu's Panda Hut Restaurant is a Chinese-food restaurant that
provides dine-in, carry-out, and delivery services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Bykhovsky, Esq.
          BYKHOVSKY LAW LLC
          4465 N. Oakland Ave., Ste. 110
          Shorewood, WI 53211
          Telephone: (414) 616 1655
          E-mail: euegene@byklaw.com


YAHOO! INC: Motion to Dismiss "Buch" Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! 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's motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "On April 22, 2015, a stockholder action
captioned Cathy Buch v. David Filo, et al., was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors. The complaint asserts both
derivative claims, purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, and class
action claims, purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff and all
similarly situated stockholders, relating to the termination of,
and severance payments made to, our former chief operating
officer, Henrique de Castro. The plaintiff alleges that certain
current and former board members breached their fiduciary duties
by enabling or acquiescing in the payment of severance to Mr. de
Castro, and by allowing Yahoo to make allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the value of his severance. The
plaintiff has also asserted claims against Mr. de Castro. The
plaintiff seeks to recoup the severance paid to Mr. de Castro, an
equitable accounting, disgorgement in favor of Yahoo, monetary
damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the action."

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

Yahoo! Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
guide to digital information discovery, focused on informing,
connecting, and entertaining users through its search,
communications, and digital content products.


                            *********

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  * * *