---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 28, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 128




                            Headlines


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Securities Class Action Stayed
AKORN INC: Securities Class Action Ongoing in N.D. Ill.
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Seeks to Transfer Class Suit to West Virginia
ALLERGAN PLC: Oral Argument Held on Bid to Dismiss Asacol Cases
ALLERGAN PLC: Motion for Judgment Taken Under Submission

ALLERGAN PLC: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Doryx(R) Appeal
ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Forest et al.'s Bid to Nix Namenda Suits Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Oral Argument Began June 13 in Zymar Appeal
ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Celexa-Lexapro Cases

ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Generic Drug Pricing Suits in Pennsylvania
ALLERGAN PLC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in TRT Class Action
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Underway in Employment Class Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Alendronate Product Liability Suits
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces 1,410 Suits Over Benicar(R)

ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Faces 185 Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suits
ALLERGAN PLC: 1,500 Metoclopramide Injury Suits Pending v. Units
ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Propoxyphene Product Liability Suits
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Products Suit Underway
ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Settlement Fairness Hearing Held

ANAVEX LIFE: Court Permits Lead Plaintiff to Amend Complaint
APOLLO GLOBAL: Global Trial to Begin Aug. 22
APOLLO GLOBAL: "Koskie" Action Remains Pending
APOLLO GLOBAL: Silva-Hudson Lawsuit Pending in Iowa
APOLLO GLOBAL: Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel Sought

APOLLO GLOBAL: Suits Over Fresh Market Merger in Early Stage
APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Remand Case v. Sprouts Farmers
AVENUE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action in Tennessee Court
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Parties Reach $9.5 Million Settlement
COLONY STARWOOD: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending

DELTA APPAREL: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Awaits Approval
DJO FINANCE: Still Defends Pain Pump Litigation
DOTHAN CITY: Faces "Stokes" Suit in D.C. M.D. Ala.
FIFTH STREET: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
FIFTH STREET: Defending Against "Craig" Lawsuit

FIRST ADVANTAGE: "Larroque" Parties Ordered to Show Cause
FIRST TRINITY: FBLIC to Oppose Class Certification Request
FOUR OAKS FINCORP: Class Suits Pending in Fla. and North Carolina
FOX CHASE: Motion to Stay Proceedings Granted
GENIE ENERGY: "Ferrare" Lawsuit Still Pending in Pennsylvania

GENIE ENERGY: "McLaughlin" Lawsuit Still Pending in E.D.N.Y.
GENIE ENERGY: "Aks" Lawsuit Still Pending in New Jersey
HCSB FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Shelley" Class Action Pending
HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oral Argument Held in Contact Lens Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Over XARELTO Still Pending
KELLY SERVICES: Settlement Reached in "Hillson" Class Suit
KLACORALGABLES LLC: "Davila" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
KRAFT HEINZ: "Ambers" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
KRAFT HEINZ: "Ford" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705

KRAFT HEINZ: "Lewis" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
KRAFT HEINZ: "Quinn" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Class Action Deal in "Brown" Has Final Okay
MARIO BADESCU: Approval of Settlement Deal in "Choi" Affirmed
MARTIN O'BOYLE: Dismissal of "Wantman" Affirmed

MATCH GROUP: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
MDL 1688: Pfizer Updates on Celebrex and Bextra Cases
MDL 2342: Zoloft Personal Injury Litigation Winding Down
MDL 2691: Viagra Suits v. Pfizer Ongoing
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends "Owens" Class Suit

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Robainas" Still Pending
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Intoccia" Ongoing
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Affirmed Order in "Fauley"
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends "Voshall" Class Suit in Calif.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Calif. Court Dismissed "Martin" Suit

METROPOLITAN LIFE: To Defend Against "Lau" ERISA Suit in N.Y.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: To Defend Against "Newman" Case in N.D. Ill.
MICROSOFT CORP: U.S. Judge Allows Pro-Sys to Issue Subpoena
MONTGOMERY, GA: May Use Taxes to Fund Convenience Centers
NORTEK INC: Motions to Dismiss and Strike Pending in Tenn. Suit

NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Oppose Motion to Dismiss
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Maryland Suit
NUCOR CORPORATION: Antitrust Class Suits Ongoing
OCEAN POWER: Securities Class Action Resolved for $3,000,000
OGLETHORPE POWER: Superior Court Judge Dismissed Patronage Suits

P.C. RICHARD & SON: "Matijakovich" Suit Dismissed
PFIZER INC: Updates on Effexor XR Antitrust Cases
PFIZER INC: Ontario Suit Over Chantix/Champix Underway
PINGTAN MARINE: Still Faces "Fila" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
PJT PARTNERS: Faces "Barrett" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.

PRIME ACCEPTANCE: Faces "Barrera" Suit in D. Ariz.
PLATFORM SPECIALTY: To Defend Against "Tuttelman" Class Suit
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Settlement Reached in "Coleman" Suit
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Settlement Reached in "Vazquez" Suit
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Settlement Reached in "Ramnath" Suit

PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 26 Final Settlement Hearing
RESONANT INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Warren Police Suit Still Pending in Calif.
RH ALLERGY: Faces "Jacobson" Suit in C.D. Cal.
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Wages Suits Pending in Calif. and Illinois

ROCKET FUEL: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in N.D. Cal.
SANKEI SHIMBUN: Dismissal of "You" Defamation Suit Affirmed
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Defends Morning Song Bird Food Case
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel Denied
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: MSLO Stockholder Complaint Pending

SNYDER'S-LANCE: Settlement Funds to Be Distributed in June 2016
SNYDER'S-LANCE: No Schedule Yet on Motions to Dismiss Merger Case
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Case Management Conference on Aug. 1
STAAR SURGICAL: Must Defend Against "Todd" Class Suit
STRATUS FRANCHISING: Appeal in Franchise Fraud Suit Tossed

SUNOPTA INC: Class Suit Parties Engaged in Discovery
SUNSHINE ROOFING: "Arguello" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
SWISHER HYGIENE: Status Hearing Held in "Berger" Case
SWISHER HYGIENE: "Raul" Amended Complaint Dismissed
TARGET CORPORATION: "Hara" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705

TARGET CORPORATION: "Saitta" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Class Actions in U.S. and Israel
UNITED STATES: Gov't. Faces "Horvath" Suit in Ct. of Fed. Claims
VIVINT SOLAR: Accord with Installation Technicians Still Pending
VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal in "Hyatt" Case Pending

VIVINT SOLAR: Delaware Court Dismissed Acquisition Case
VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal in Kern County Suit Pending
WAL-MART STORES: "Costoso" Suit Consolidated in MLD 2705
WAL-MART STORES: "Ducorsky" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
WAL-MART STORES: "Moschetta" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705

WARNER CHILCOTT: Defendant in 193 Actonel Product Liability Suits
WATTS WATER: Settlement of Ponzo and Klug Connector Suits Pending
WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces 2 Class Actions Related to Data Incident


                            *********


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Securities Class Action Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Advanced Emissions Solutions, 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 securities
class action lawsuit, United Food and Commercial Workers Union v.
Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S.
District Court, D. Colo.), has been stayed until further court
order .

A class action lawsuit against ADES and certain of its current and
former officers is pending in the federal court in Denver,
Colorado. This lawsuit and a companion case were originally filed
in May 2014. On February 19, 2015, the Court consolidated these
cases and appointed the United Foods and Commercial Workers Union
and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund
as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of the law firms. The
consolidated case is now captioned United Food and Commercial
Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-
01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.).

The lead plaintiff filed "Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Class
Action Complaint" on April 20, 2015 (the "Consolidated
Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the
Company and certain current and former Company officers.

Plaintiffs allege that ADES and other defendants misrepresented to
the investing public the Company's financial condition and its
financial controls to artificially inflate and maintain the market
price of ADES's common stock. The Consolidated Complaint alleges
two claims for relief for: 1) alleged violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and 2)
control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages together with costs
and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting the class action,
among other relief. The Consolidated Complaint alleges a class
period covering all purchasers or acquirers of the common stock of
ADES or its predecessor-in-interest during the proposed class
period from May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on
June 19, 2015, contending the Consolidated Complaint: 1) fails to
meet the strict pleading standards required for Section 10(b)
claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary violation required
for any claim of secondary (control person) liability. Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition to this motion on July 2, 2015 and
Defendants filed their reply brief on July 16, 2015.

On March 7, 2016 the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the
case while the parties mediate the matter. On March 8, 2016, the
motion to stay was granted, and the Defendants' motion to dismiss
was denied without prejudice with the option to refile should
mediation fail. The case is stayed until further order of the
court.


AKORN INC: Securities Class Action Ongoing in N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that on March 4, 2015, a purported class action
complaint was filed entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., at el., in the
federal district court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-
cv-1944. The complaint alleged that the Company and three of its
officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with
matters related to its accounting and financial reporting in the
wake of its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. and
VersaPharm, Inc. A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v.
Akorn, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015,
makes similar allegations and seeks unspecified damages. On August
24, 2015, the two cases were consolidated and a lead plaintiff
appointed in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation. No motions
or answer have been filed in the case.

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

Akorn, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, is a
specialty generic pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals and branded as well as private-label over-the-
counter consumer health products and animal health
pharmaceuticals.


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Seeks to Transfer Class Suit to West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.Com 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 Company filed a
motion to transfer a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On December 30, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not
allege that Alarm.com violated the TCPA, but instead seeks to hold
us responsible for the marketing activities of our service
providers under principles of agency and vicarious liability. The
complaint seeks monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive
relief, and other relief, including attorney's fees. We answered
the complaint on February 26, 2016. On March 24, 2016, we filed a
motion to transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia to be consolidated with 23
other similar and related pending TCPA actions. That motion is
currently pending. Based on currently available information, we
determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this
time."


ALLERGAN PLC: Oral Argument Held on Bid to Dismiss Asacol Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that oral
argument was scheduled for May 11, 2016, on the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the indirect purchasers' complaint in the Asacol(R)
Litigation.

On June 22, 2015, two class action complaints were filed in
federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers. In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they
paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol (R) HD and
Delzicol (R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged
actions preventing or delaying generic competition in the market
for Warner Chilcott's older Asacol (R) product in violation of
U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district
court.

On September 21, 2015, three additional complaints were filed on
behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers, each raising
similar allegations to the complaints filed in June 2015.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
complaint. Oral argument on the motion was scheduled for May 11,
2016.

On April 26, 2016, a direct purchaser, Meijer, Inc., filed a
complaint in federal court in New York. The direct purchaser
complaint makes similar allegations to the complaints filed by the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Motion for Judgment Taken Under Submission
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a
court has held oral argument on plaintiff's motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial
summary judgment or adjudication in the Botox(R) Litigation, and
took the matter under submission.

On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in
federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market
allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec.1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Sec.1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market
power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec.2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright
Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and
violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200
et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on May 29, 2015. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 20, 2015, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial
summary judgment or adjudication. The Company filed a response to
the motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 11, 2016. The
court held oral argument on plaintiff's motion on March 4, 2016
and took the matter under submission.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Doryx(R) Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
date for oral argument on the appeal in the Doryx(R) litigation
has not yet been set.

In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a
complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International
Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that
Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic
competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx (R) products in violation
of U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with
Mylan's prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania
state law. In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and
punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Following the filing of
Mylan's complaint, three putative class actions were filed against
Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one
putative class action was filed against by purported indirect
purchasers. In addition, four retailers filed in the same court a
civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities against
Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx (R) . In each of the
class and individual cases the plaintiffs allege that they paid
higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx (R) products as a result
of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions preventing or
delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal
antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of
the actions were consolidated in the federal district court.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without
prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott
and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual
retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for
summary judgment on March 10, 2014.

On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner
Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan's
summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner
Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan is appealing the district
court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the
appeal is fully briefed. The date for oral argument on the appeal
has not yet been set.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar
suits will be filed.


ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, in their 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 Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin (R) 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin (R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin (R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages. Additional complaints have been
filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same
putative class of end-payors.

In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of a class of direct payors. The Company anticipates
additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar
allegations.

After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order
transferring all related Loestrin (R) 24 cases to the federal
court for the District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The
plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the First
Circuit Court of Appeals and oral argument was held on December 7,
2015. On February 22, 2016 the First Circuit issued its decision
vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the
district court.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the
district court's decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Forest et al.'s Bid to Nix Namenda Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that
Forest and its co-defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints by
direct and indirect purchasers of Namenda(R) remain pending.

On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office
of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging that Forest is acting to prevent or delay
generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product
Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and
committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial
plans for Namenda (R) XR. In the complaint, the state seeks
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.

On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise
limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda(R) until
the conclusion of the litigation. A hearing was held in November
2014 on the state's preliminary injunction motion. On December 11,
2014, the district court issued a ruling granting the state's
injunction motion and issued an injunction on December 15, 2014.

On May 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the preliminary injunction. On June 5, 2015, Forest filed
a petition with the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc which was
denied. Forest and the New York Attorney General reached a
settlement on November 24, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative
class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect
purchasers. Since that time, additional complaints have been filed
on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers.
The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted
by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between Forest and
generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.

On December 22, 2015, Forest and its co-defendants filed motions
to dismiss the pending complaints of the putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers. These motions remain pending.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities
vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Oral Argument Began June 13 in Zymar Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that oral
argument was scheduled to begin June 13, 2016, before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit over the appeal from the
dismissal of a 2014 antitrust class action complaint related to
Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R).

On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in
the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which
includes Allergan's ZYMAR (R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution
0.3% and ZYMAXID (R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%
products.

On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries
occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex
obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan
and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also
filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related
patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay
the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent
dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to
renew.

On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed Allergan's
motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an answer to
Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015.

On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR (R) and ZYMAXID (R) ).

On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 19, 2015, the
court granted Allergan's motion to dismiss. On September 18, 2015,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.  Oral argument was scheduled for June 13,
2016.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Celexa-Lexapro Cases
---------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, in their 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 various Celexa(R) /Lexapro(R) class actions lawsuits.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three
federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased
Celexa (R) and/or Lexapro (R) for pediatric use, all of which have
been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL proceeding in
the federal district court Massachusetts (the "Celexa (R) /Lexapro
(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were originally filed as
putative nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative
California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa
(R) and/or Lexapro (R) for off-label pediatric use and paid
illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa
(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert various similar claims,
including claims under the state consumer protection statutes and
state common laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to
have certified California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-
wide classes. However, only the Missouri state class was
certified.

Forest subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs
to settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both
individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa (R) or
Lexapro (R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for
$7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35
million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On
September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the
settlement.

Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in
the Celexa (R) /Lexapro (R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was
filed in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who
purchased Lexapro (R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a
state-wide class action in California and alleging that our
promotion of Lexapro (R) for adolescent depression has been
deceptive.

On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this
complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision
to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20,
2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint,
ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted
by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in
Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party
payor entities that purchased Celexa (R) and Lexapro (R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that
Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa (R) and
Lexapro (R).

Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014,
the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under
Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the
remaining portions of the motion. A hearing on plaintiff's motion
for class certification was scheduled for May 25, 2016.

On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in
Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a
nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa (R)
and Lexapro (R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state
common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa (R) and Lexapro(R). The court
granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December
12, 2014 ruling.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers
that purchased Celexa (R) and Lexapro (R) for pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in
off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to
physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa (R) and Lexapro (R).
Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014.

On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. Plaintiffs
thereafter filed an amended complaint. Forest moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are also named as defendants
in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa (R) and
Lexapro (R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court.
These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in
the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One
action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities
that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa (R)
and/or Lexapro (R) . The complaint asserts claims under the
Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and
seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative
class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who
purchased Celexa (R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri
common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa (R) for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached
agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to
resolve each matter for payments that are not material to the
Company's financial condition or results of operations.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these
actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if
any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Generic Drug Pricing Suits in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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 complaint was filed on March 2, 2016,
against Allergan plc and several other defendants in federal court
in Pennsylvania on behalf of a putative class of direct and
indirect purchasers of certain pharmaceutical products. Three
additional indirect purchaser class action complaints were filed
in the same court, two were filed on March 25, 2016 and one was
filed on April 25, 2016.

Each of the complaints allege that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of certain
generic drug products. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this action. However, this action, if successful, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in TRT Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
Plaintiff has filed its Third Amended Complaint in the
Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection
with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement
therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the
Company's Androderm (R) product. This matter was filed in the TRT
Products Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product
liability matter.

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff
seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive
relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and
to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after
which plaintiff amended its complaint.

Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on
February 3, 2016. The Court dismissed plaintiff's substantive RICO
claims for mail and wire fraud for failure to plead with
particularity under Rule 9(b) but granted plaintiffs leave to
replead. The court also dismissed plaintiff's state law statutory
claims and common law claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. The
Court declined to dismiss plaintiff's conspiracy claims pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) and its claims for negligent
misrepresentation.

On March 2, 2016, the defendants jointly filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the court's ruling on plaintiff's claims under
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d). Plaintiff filed its Third Amended
Complaint on April 7, 2016.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action.
However, an adverse determination in the case could have an
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Underway in Employment Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
employment class action lawsuit against Forest et al. is still in
its early stages and the parties are beginning to work on
discovery matters.

In July 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as
defendants in an action brought by certain former company sales
representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal
district court in New York. The action is a putative class and
collective action, and alleges class claims under Title VII for
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well
as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective
action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII
gender class includes all current and former female sales
representatives employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from
2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy
sub-class includes all current and former female sales
representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant while
employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date
of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class
includes current, former, and future female sales representatives
who were not compensated equally to similarly-situated male
employees during the applicable liability period. The Second
Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on behalf of
certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and
retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part,
striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead
limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class
members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs'
claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of
an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the
Company has opposed. On September 2, 2015, the court granted
plaintiffs motion to conditionally certify a collective action.
The litigation is still in its early stages and the parties are
beginning to work on discovery matters.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Alendronate Product Liability Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, in their 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 Alendronate product liability litigation.

Beginning in 2010, approximately 129  product liability suits on
behalf of approximately 170  plaintiffs have been filed against
the Company and certain of its affiliates, including Cobalt
Laboratories, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of
alendronate for personal injuries including atypical fractures of
the femur ("AFF") and osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ") allegedly
arising out of the use of alendronate. The actions are pending in
various state and federal courts. Several of the cases were
consolidated in an MDL proceeding in federal court in New Jersey.

In 2012, the MDL court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey
MDL. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Any new cases
against the Company filed in the MDL are subject to dismissal
unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should be
exempted from the 2012 dismissal order.

Other cases were consolidated in an MDL in federal court in New
York, where the Company filed a similar motion to dismiss. The
Court granted, in part, the motion to dismiss which has resulted
in the dismissal of several other cases.

The Company has also been served with six cases that are part of a
consolidated litigation in the California state court. In 2012,
the California court partially granted a motion filed on behalf of
all generic defendants seeking dismissal. Appeals in the
California cases have been exhausted and the Company has not yet
been able to determine how that will affect the cases filed
against it. The remaining active cases are part of a mass tort
coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court.

In the New Jersey proceeding, the Court granted, in part, a motion
to dismiss.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or
insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces 1,410 Suits Over Benicar(R)
-----------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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 named in approximately 1,410 actions involving
allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for hypertension that
Forest co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008,
caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under Forest's Co-
Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending Allergan in these
lawsuits.


ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Faces 185 Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that
approximately 185 actions are pending against Forest and its
affiliates involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro (R)
caused various birth defects. Several of the cases involve
multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of these actions have been
consolidated in state court in Missouri where one case is set for
trial in September 2016. Five actions remain in New Jersey state
court, none of which are set for trial. There are birth defect
cases pending in other jurisdictions, including a case pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi that is set for trial in August 2017.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) cases and maintains product liability
insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently
uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not
provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: 1,500 Metoclopramide Injury Suits Pending v. Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that
roughly 1,500 cases over personal injuries related to the use of
Metoclopramide remain pending against certai of the Company's
affiliates.

Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and
Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors
of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of
the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,500 cases remain
pending against Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and
federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs.
Discovery in these cases has not progressed beyond the preliminary
stages as the Company has taken steps to dismiss the suits based
on preemption including through initiating or defending appeals on
such motions.

The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the
cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in
and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom
the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late
2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis
companies, the Company recently reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the majority of the matters.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or
insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Propoxyphene Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, in their 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 various product liability lawsuits over the use of
Propoxyphene.

Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal
injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths
allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are
pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and
federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,400
plaintiffs.

A number of the cases were consolidated in an MDL in federal
district court in Kentucky. On June 22, 2012, the MDL court
granted the generic defendants' joint motion to dismiss the
remaining MDL cases. On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed
the district court's dismissal. Plaintiffs did not file a petition
for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

In addition, approximately 35 cases were filed in California state
court. These cases were removed to federal district courts and,
after disputes over whether the cases should be remanded to state
court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the
removals to federal court were proper. Many of the cases in
California federal courts were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and consolidated for
all pretrial proceedings in front of Judge Reeves, who presided
over the MDL proceedings. The Court issued a Show Cause Order
requiring plaintiffs to show cause on or before April 18, 2016 why
their claims against the Generic Defendants (including Watson)
should not be dismissed pursuant to the Court's prior order in the
MDL dismissing all of the claims against the Generic Defendants
with prejudice. The vast majority of these cases have been
dismissed against the Generic Defendants, some voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice and some dismissed on procedural grounds
without prejudice.

Three of the seven cases that remained in California district
court have now been transferred to the Eastern District of
Kentucky, and the others are likely to follow and to become
subject to the Court's Show Cause Order.  Once the remaining
procedural matters are resolved, the defendants will file
demurrers and motions to dismiss the remaining suits pursuant to
the Court's Show Cause Order.

In addition, approximately eight lawsuits have been filed in
Oklahoma which plaintiffs are seeking to have remanded from
federal to state court.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Products Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
multi-district litigation related to the Company's testosterone
products are in the initial stages and discovery is in the early
stages.

Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for
personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular
events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm (R)
testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate.
Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been
served in approximately 454  currently pending actions, three of
which are pending in state courts and the remainder of which are
pending in federal court. The federal court actions have been
consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois.

The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint
in the MDL. Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all claims relating
to any of Actavis' generic TRT products from the cases. These
cases are in the initial stages and discovery is in the early
stages.

The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The
Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Settlement Fairness Hearing Held
-------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a fairness hearing was
scheduled for June 22, 2016, on the "Rothal" case settlement.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit
that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs
purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out of
construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia
Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to expand the class to include
other homes in Weston. The motion to expand the class was
withdrawn.

The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not
settle. The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the
amended complaint. The Arvida defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.

The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the
class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the
class by order dated September 16, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal
challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the
appellate court affirmed the trial court's order certifying the
class. The case has been returned to the trial court for further
proceedings including trial.

The parties and their insurers have entered into agreements in
principle to settle this case. The Rothal settlement is subject to
various conditions, further court approval, and a hearing on
fairness now scheduled for June 22, 2016.

There are no assurances that the Rothal settlement will in fact be
consummated. The costs associated with the agreement in principle
are reflected in ALP's financial statements. The case does not
currently have a trial date. If the matter is not settled, the
defense of the case will proceed. The Partnership intends to
vigorously defend itself. This case has been tendered to one of
the Partnership's insurance carriers, Zurich American Insurance
Company (together with its affiliates collectively, "Zurich"), for
defense and indemnity. Zurich is providing a defense of this
matter under a purported reservation of rights. The Partnership
has also engaged other counsel in connection with this lawsuit.


ANAVEX LIFE: Court Permits Lead Plaintiff to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Anavex Life Sciences Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has granted
lead plaintiff thirty days to amend the complaint and set a
briefing schedule.

On December 30, 2015, Kevin Cortina filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Cortina v. Anaves Life Sciences Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-10162, against the Company, Christopher
Missling, Sandra Boenisch, and Athanasios Skarpelos.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock between May 17, 2013 and December 28, 2015.  The
complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies.  Among other things, the
complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it used
a paid stock promoter to artificially inflate the Company's share
price.  The complaint does not specify an amount of damages
sought.

On April 5, 2016 the court appointed Lam Truong as lead plaintiff
and Levi & Korsinsky to serve as lead counsel.  On April 13, 2016,
the court granted lead plaintiff thirty days to amend the
complaint and set a briefing schedule.

Defendants believe this action is meritless and deny all
allegations against them.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend this matter.

Anavex Life Sciences Corp. (the "Company") is a clinical stage
biopharmaceutical company engaged in the development of
differentiated therapeutics for the treatment of neurodegenerative
and neurodevelopmental diseases including drug candidates to treat
Alzheimer's disease, other central nervous system (CNS) diseases,
pain and various types of cancer. The Company's lead compound
ANAVEX 2-73 is being developed to treat Alzheimer's disease and
potentially other central nervous system (CNS) diseases, including
rare diseases, such as Rett syndrome.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Global Trial to Begin Aug. 22
--------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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
presiding over the BOKF, UMB SDNY and Wilmington Trust Actions has
ordered a briefing and oral argument schedule for renewed summary
judgment motions and has scheduled a global trial, if necessary,
to begin on August 22, 2016.

     (1) MeehanCombs Global Credit Opportunities Master Fund,
         L.P., et al. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al.,
         No. 14-cv-7091 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "MeehanCombs Action").

On September 3, 2014, institutional investors allegedly holding
approximately $137 million in CEOC unsecured senior notes sued
CEOC and Caesars Entertainment for breach of contract and the
implied covenant of good faith, Trust Indenture Act ("TIA")
violations and a declaratory judgment challenging the August 2014
private financing transaction in which a portion of outstanding
senior unsecured notes were purchased by Caesars Entertainment,
and a majority of the noteholders agreed to amend the indenture to
terminate Caesars Entertainment's guarantee of the notes and
modify certain restrictions on CEOC's ability to sell assets.
Caesars Entertainment and CEOC filed a motion to dismiss on
November 12, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the court granted the
motion with respect to a TIA claim by MeehanCombs but otherwise
denied the motion. On January 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint seeking relief against Caesars Entertainment
only, and Caesars Entertainment answered on February 12, 2015. On
October 2, 2014, a related putative class action complaint was
filed on behalf of the holders of these notes captioned Danner v.
Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973 (S.D.N.Y.)
(the "Danner Action"), against Caesars Entertainment alleging
claims similar to those in the MeehanCombs Action.

On February 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and
Caesars Entertainment answered the amended complaint on February
25, 2015. In March 2015, each of MeehanCombs and Danner served
subpoenas for documents on Apollo. Apollo produced responsive,
non-privileged documents in response to those subpoenas.

In July 2015, MeehanCombs and Danner served subpoenas for
depositions on Apollo and those depositions were completed on
September 22, 2015.

On October 23, 2015, MeehanCombs and Danner filed motions for
partial summary judgment, related to TIA and breach of contract
claims. On December 29, 2015, the court denied the motions for
partial summary judgment. The parties are currently engaged in
expert discovery.

On March 23, 2016, the judge presiding over the MeehanCombs and
Danner Actions announced that she was retiring from the bench
effective April 28.  A new judge was assigned to preside over the
MeehanCombs and Danner Actions.

On April 6, 2016, the parties agreed to a renewed summary judgment
schedule for the MeehanCombs, Danner, BOKF, UMB SDNY and
Wilmington Trust Actions. The moving parties submitted their
briefs on May 10, 2016.  Opposition briefs were due on or before
May 31, 2016. Reply briefs were due on or before June 14, 2016.
The court scheduled oral argument on the summary judgment motions
for June 24, 2016. The court indicated that it anticipates issuing
a decision on the summary judgment motions by July 22, 2016 and
that a global trial, if necessary, will begin on August 22, 2016.

     (2) BOKF, N.A. v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation, No.
         15-156 (S.D.N.Y) (the "BOKF Action").

On March 3, 2015, BOKF, N.A., as trustee for certain CEOC notes,
sued Caesars Entertainment in the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, intentional
interference with contractual relations and a declaratory
judgment, and seeks to enforce Caesars Entertainment's guarantee
of certain CEOC notes. The BOKF Action has been assigned to the
same judge as the MeehanCombs and Danner Actions. On March 25,
2015, Caesars Entertainment filed an answer to the complaint. On
May 19, 2015, BOKF sent the court a letter requesting permission
to file a partial summary judgment motion on Counts II and V of
its complaint, related to the validity and enforceability of
Caesars Entertainment's guarantee of certain notes issued by CEOC
and alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec.Sec. 76aaa, et seq. The MeehanCombs and Danner plaintiffs did
not join BOKF's request to file for partial summary judgment. On
May 28, 2015, the court granted BOKF permission to move for
partial summary judgment.

     (3) UMB Bank, N.A. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al.,
         No. 15-cv-4634 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "UMB SDNY Action")

On June 15, 2015, another related complaint captioned UMB Bank,
N.A. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 15-cv-4634
(S.D.N.Y.) (the "UMB SDNY Action") was filed by UMB Bank, N.A.,
solely in its capacity as Indenture Trustee of certain first lien
notes ("UMB"), against Caesars Entertainment alleging claims
similar to those alleged in the BOKF, MeehanCombs and Danner
Actions. On June 16, 2015, UMB sent a letter to the court
requesting permission to file a partial summary judgment motion on
the same schedule with BOKF. On June 26, 2015, BOKF and UMB filed
partial summary judgment motions (the "Partial Summary Judgment
Motions"). On July 24, 2015, Caesars Entertainment filed its
opposition to the Partial Summary Judgment Motions, and on August
7, 2015, BOKF and UMB filed reply briefs in further support of the
Partial Summary Judgment Motions. On August 27, 2015, the Court
denied the Partial Summary Judgment Motions and certified its
opinion for an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 22, 2015, the Second
Circuit declined to hear the interlocutory appeal.

Separately, on November 20, 2015, BOKF and UMB filed a second set
of motions for partial summary judgment, on the issue of the
disputed contract interpretation related to indenture release
provisions. On January 5, 2016 the District Court denied these
motions.

At a hearing on February 22, 2016, the Court bifurcated the trial
in the BOKF and UMB SDNY Actions and scheduled the trial on the
breach of contract and TIA claims to begin on March 14, 2016. The
Court ordered a separate trial on the claims for breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference
with contract to begin at a later date to be determined. On
February 26, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted the stay request
as to the BOKF Action until May 9, 2016, resulting in a stay of
the trial on the breach of contract and TIA claims in the BOKF and
UMB SDNY Actions.

On February 24, 2016, Caesars Entertainment filed a motion for
partial summary judgment to dispose of the claims for (1) breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing brought by
BOKF and UMB, and (2) intentional interference with contractual
relations brought by BOKF.  The court presiding over the BOKF, UMB
SDNY and Wilmington Trust Actions has ordered a briefing and oral
argument schedule for renewed summary judgment motions and has
scheduled a global trial, if necessary, to begin on August 22,
2016.

     (4) Wilmington Trust, National Association v. Caesars
         Entertainment Corporation, No. 15-cv-08280 (S.D.N.Y.)
         (the "Wilmington Trust Action").

On October 20, 2015, Wilmington Trust, N.A., solely in its
capacity as Indenture Trustee for the 10.75% Notes due 2016
("Wilmington Trust"), sued Caesars Entertainment in the Southern
District of New York alleging claims similar to those alleged in
the BOKF, UMB, MeehanCombs, and Danner Actions. The Wilmington
Trust Action has been referred to the same judge as the other
related cases pending in the Southern District of New York. Should
any party to the Wilmington Trust Action wish to seek summary
judgment on any issue, that motion for summary judgment will
proceed on the same schedule as the MeehanCombs, Danner, BOKF, and
UMB SDNY Actions.

Apollo believes that the claims in the Trustee Action, the UMB
Action, the MeehanCombs Action, the Danner Action, the Koskie
Action, the BOKF Action, the UMB SDNY Action, and the Wilmington
Trust Action are without merit. For this reason, and because of
pending bankruptcy proceedings involving CEOC and certain of its
subsidiaries, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can
be made at this time.


APOLLO GLOBAL: "Koskie" Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 case, Koskie
v. Caesars Acquisition Company, et al., No. A-14-711712-C (Clark
Cnty Nev. Dist. Ct.) (the "Koskie Action"), remains pending.

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie brought a shareholder class
action on behalf of shareholders of Caesars Acquisition Company
("CAC") against CAC, Caesars Entertainment, and members of CAC's
Board of Directors, including Marc Rowan and David Sambur (each an
Apollo partner). The lawsuit challenges CAC and Caesars
Entertainment's plan to merge, alleging that the proposed
transaction will not give CAC shareholders fair value. Koskie
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the
director defendants' interrelationships with the entities involved
the proposed transaction. The deadline for CAC to respond to this
lawsuit has been adjourned indefinitely by agreement of the
parties.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Silva-Hudson Lawsuit Pending in Iowa
---------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 by Rachel Silva and Don Hudson in
Iowa court.

On June 12, 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ("California Court") by Rachel Silva ("Silva") and Don
Hudson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
against Aviva plc; Athene Annuity and Life Company f/k/a Aviva
Life and Annuity Company ("Aviva"); Athene USA Corporation f/k/a
Aviva USA Corporation; Athene Holding; Athene Life Re Ltd.; Athene
Asset Management; and AGM. The complaint in this action alleges
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d). The plaintiffs allege
that commencing in 2007 and continuing thereafter, Aviva and its
then management engaged in a scheme to, among other things,
falsely represent the financial strength of and hide the true
financial condition of Aviva by, among other things, allegedly
ceding risky liabilities to Aviva's undercapitalized subsidiaries
and affiliates, misvaluing assets, and failing to make required
disclosures to purchasers of policies, and that after Athene
Holding purchased all of the outstanding stock of Aviva's parent
effective October 2, 2013 the scheme was unwound and rewound so as
to continue, and that as a result thereof some of the purchasers
of annuity products issued by Aviva were charged an excessive
price and were damaged as a result thereof.

All defendants (except Aviva plc) (a) moved to transfer this
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa ("Iowa Court") and (b) moved to dismiss this
action. Aviva plc separately moved to dismiss the action for lack
of jurisdiction over it. The California Court granted the motion
to transfer to the Iowa Court and denied without prejudice the
motions to dismiss.

The defendants (except for Aviva plc) have moved to reinstate
their motion to dismiss, and in reaction thereto the plaintiffs
have advised the defendants that they intend to amend their
complaint, on consent of the defendants or by motion to the Iowa
Court, which would, inter alia, change the emphasis of their
alleged factual assertions, drop Silva as a named plaintiff and
drop Aviva plc as a defendant. The defendants are considering what
their position will be on consenting to the filing of the proposed
amended complaint but, in any event, will pursue a motion to
dismiss either the original or the amended complaint.

If the action is not dismissed, Athene Asset Management and AGM
(and the other defendants) will deny the material allegations of
the relevant complaint and will vigorously defend themselves
against these claims. Although neither Athene Asset Management nor
AGM can predict the ultimate outcome of this action, each believes
that it is without merit, and because this action is in its early
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made at this time.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 counsel for
the plaintiffs in the case, Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, seek the appointment of interim co-lead
counsel.

After the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger among Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc.,
Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub"), two putative class action lawsuits challenging the
proposed merger, captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential
Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532, and Wiener v. Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were filed
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.  A putative class and
derivative lawsuit was later filed in the same Court, captioned
Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-
002610.

Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among
other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In
Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No.: 24-C-16-002610.  The plaintiffs have designated the Crago
complaint as the operative complaint.

The operative complaint includes both direct and derivative
claims, names as defendants AGM, AMTG, the board of directors of
AMTG (the "AMTG Board"), ARI, Merger Sub and Athene Holding and
alleges, among other things, that the members of the AMTG Board
breached their fiduciary duties to AMTG's stockholders and that
the other defendants aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches.
The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that
the proposed merger involves inadequate consideration, was the
result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and includes
unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude
competing offers.  It also alleges that the transactions with
Athene Holding are unfair and that the registration statement on
Form S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially
misleading disclosures and omits certain material information. The
operative complaint seeks, among other things, certification of
the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the merger,
unspecified damages, and an award of other unspecified attorneys'
and other fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel.
Apollo believes that plaintiffs' claims against it are without
merit. For this reason, and because the claims are in their early
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made at this time.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Suits Over Fresh Market Merger in Early Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 lawsuits related
to the merger agreement of The Fresh Market, Inc. with certain
entities affiliated with Apollo are in the early stages.

Following the March 14, 2016 announcement that The Fresh Market,
Inc. ("TFM") had entered into a merger agreement with certain
entities affiliated with Apollo (the "TFM Merger Agreement"), five
putative shareholder class actions were filed in four courts (one
in the Superior Court of Guilford County, North Carolina; two in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; one
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina; and one in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware). Additionally, one individual action demanding
inspection of books and records was filed in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware. The first purported class action,
captioned Dolores Balint v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case
No. 16-CVS-4144, was filed on March 23, 2016 in the North Carolina
Superior Court (the "Balint Action"). The complaint named as
defendants TFM, its officers and directors and certain affiliates
of AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Inc. ("Pomegranate Holdings") and
Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc. ("Pomegranate Merger Sub"). The
Balint action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April
13, 2016. The second purported class action, captioned Ross
DeAmbrogio v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00239-LPS, was filed April 7, 2016 in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware and named as defendants TFM and
its officers and directors (the "DeAmbrogio action"). The third
purported class action, captioned John Solak v. The Fresh Market,
Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00249-SLR, was filed April 8, 2016
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
and named as defendants TFM, its officers and directors, AGM,
Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and Apollo Management
VIII, L.P. (the "Solak Action"). The fourth purported class
action, captioned Ronald Jantz v. Ray Berry, et. al., Case No.
1:16-cv-0307-CCE-JEP, was filed April 11, 2016 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
and named as defendants TFM and its officers and directors (the
"Jantz Action"). The fifth purported class action, captioned Bruce
S. Sherman, et. al. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No.
12205-VCG, was filed April 14, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the
State of Delaware and named as defendants TFM, its officers and
directors, AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and
Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (the "Sherman Action"). The sixth
action, an individual action captioned Elizabeth Morrison v. The
Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12243-VCG, was filed April 22, 2016
in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware and names only TFM
as a defendant (the "Morrison Action"). The Morrison Action seeks
only the right to inspect certain books and records of TFM
pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware Corporate Code. The Solak
Action and Sherman Action allege, among other things, that the TFM
officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the TFM
shareholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the TFM Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an
inadequate price and by filing materially deficient disclosures
regarding the transaction. The Solak Action and the Sherman Action
further allege that TFM, AGM, Apollo Management VIII, L.P.,
Pomegranate Holdings and Pomegranate Merger Sub, aided and abetted
in those alleged breaches. The DeAmbrogio Action, the Solak
Action, and the Jantz Action all allege, among other things, that
the defendants violated federal securities laws based on purported
material misstatements and omissions contained in public filings
related to the TFM Merger Agreement and based on certain support
and rollover agreements entered into as part of the TFM Merger
Agreement.

As filed, the shareholders seek, among other things, rescission of
the various transactions associated with the merger and/or
rescissory or other damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and
costs. The plaintiff in the DeAmbrogio Action had filed a Motion
for Preliminary Injunction on April 11, 2016 but withdrew that
request on April 13, 2016. None of the courts in which these
actions are pending has yet set a schedule for resolving the cases
on the merits. Because each of these actions is in the early
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made. Apollo believes that each of these actions is without merit.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Remand Case v. Sprouts Farmers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 moved to
remand the securities class action lawsuit against Sprouts Farmers
Market, Inc.

On March 4, 2016, the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi filed a putative securities class action against
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. ("SFM"), several SFM directors
(including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo partner), an LP and an LLC
controlled by entities managed by Apollo affiliates, and two
underwriters of a March 2015 secondary offering of SFM common
stock. The LP and LLC -- AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC and AP Sprouts
Holdings (Overseas), L.P. (the "AP Entities") -- sold SFM common
stock in the March 2015 secondary offering. The complaint, filed
in Arizona Superior Court and captioned Public Employees
Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
(CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM filed a materially misleading
registration statement for the secondary offering that
incorporated alleged misrepresentations in SFM's 2014 annual
report regarding SFM's business prospects, and failed to disclose
alleged accelerating produce deflation. The two causes of action
against the AP Entities are for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages for alleged losses sustained from a
decline in SFM's stock price.

On March 24, 2016, defendants removed the case to United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, and April 18, 2016,
Plaintiff moved to remand. Because this action is in its early
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made at this time.


AVENUE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action in Tennessee Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Avenue Financial 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 a purported class
action complaint was filed on May 9, 2016, in the Chancery Court
for the State of Tennessee, 20th Judicial District at Nashville,
styled Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, versus Avenue Financial Holdings,
Inc. Ronald L. Samuels, Kent Cleaver, David G. Anderson, Agenia
Clark, James F. Deutsch, Marty Dickens, Patrick G. Emery, Nancy
Falls, Joseph C. Galante, David Ingram. Stephen Moore, Ken Robold,
Karen Saul and Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., Defendants (Case
No. 16-489-IV), alleging that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving the sale
of the Company for an inadequate price as the result of a flawed
sales process, agreeing to the inclusion of unreasonable deal
protection devices in the Merger Agreement, approving the
transaction in order to receive benefits not equally shared by all
other shareholders of the Company, and issuing materially
misleading and incomplete disclosures to shareholders.  The
lawsuit also alleges claims against the Company and Pinnacle
Financial Partners, Inc. for aiding and abetting the individual
defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff purports
to seek class-wide relief, including but not limited to:  an
injunction enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the Merger,
monetary damages, and an award of interest, attorney's fees, and
expenses.  The Company believes the claims asserted in this action
to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
litigation.  However, at this time, it is not possible to predict
the outcome of the proceeding of its impact on the Company or the
proposed Merger.


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Parties Reach $9.5 Million Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Castlight Health, 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 to the
consolidated class actions have reached a cash settlement.

On April 2, April 16, April 29, and May 4, 2015, purported
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against us,
certain of our current and former directors, executive officers,
significant stockholders and underwriters associated with our
initial public offering (IPO). The lawsuits, which were
consolidated on July 22, 2015, were brought by purported
stockholders of our company seeking to represent a class
consisting of all those who purchased our stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with our IPO. A consolidated complaint ("Complaint")
was filed on July 23, 2015, alleging claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On September 22,
2015 we filed a demurrer to the Complaint. After briefing and
argument, the Court overruled the demurrer as to Plaintiffs'
claims under Sections 11 and 15 and granted with leave to amend,
the demurrer to Plaintiff's claims under Section 12(a)(2).
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on November 10, 2015. On December 10, 2015, we filed a
demurrer to the Section 12(a)(2) claim in the Amended Complaint.
On January 28, 2016, the Court again sustained the demurrer to the
Section 12(a)(2) claim in the amended Complaint. The Amended
Complaint sought unspecified damages and other relief.

On March 28, 2016, the parties to the consolidated actions reached
a mutually acceptable resolution by way of a mediated cash
settlement. The aggregate amount of the settlement under the
agreement in principle is $9.5 million.

As a result of the settlement the Company recorded a net charge of
$2.7 million to general and administrative expense during the
first quarter of 2016, which is expected to be paid out by the
Company in the second or third quarter of 2016. This amount
represents the charge for this matter that was not covered by
insurance. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the litigation, the Company is satisfied with this resolution
given the risks and expenses associated with further litigation.
The settlement is subject to final documentation and court
approval. We accrue for loss contingencies when it is both
probable that we will incur the loss and when we can reasonably
estimate the amount of the loss or range of loss.

Castlight offers a health benefits platform that engages employees
to make better health care decisions and enables employers to
communicate and measure their benefit programs.


COLONY STARWOOD: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Colony Starwood Homes 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 October 30, 2015, a putative class action
was filed by one of our purported shareholders ("Plaintiff")
against us, our trustees, the Manager, SWAY Holdco, LLC, Starwood
Capital Group and CAH ("Defendants") challenging the Merger and
the Internalization. The case is captioned South Miami Pension
Plan v. Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, et al., Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, State of Maryland, Case No. 24C15005482. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that some or all of our
trustees breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
and the Internalization, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches. The complaint also challenged the
adequacy of the public disclosures made in connection with the
Merger and the Internalization. Plaintiff sought, among other
relief, an injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on
the Internalization or the Merger, rescission of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and damages, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees."

"On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a
preliminary injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on
whether to approve the Merger and the Internalization. On December
16, 2015, the day before the shareholder vote, the Court denied
Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiff thereafter
notified the Defendants that it intended to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on February 3,
2016, asserting substantially similar claims and seeking
substantially similar relief as in its earlier complaint. In
response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 21, 2016. We believe that this action has no
merit and intend to defend vigorously against it."


DELTA APPAREL: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Awaits Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that approval of the
settlement of a wage and hour lawsuit in California remains
pending.

The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or
about March 13, 2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear
business unit at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution
facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and
unfair business practices with respect to meal and rest periods,
compensation and wage statements, and related claims (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint is brought as a class action and seeks
to include all of our Delta Activewear business unit's current and
certain former employees within California who are or were non-
exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint also
names as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent contractor of
Soffe, and a former employee, and sought to include all current
and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and the Soffe
independent contractor within California who are or were non-
exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. Delta Apparel, Inc. is
now the only remaining defendant in this case. The Complaint seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and
compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment interest."

"On or about August 22, 2014, we were served with an additional
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, by a former employee of Junkfood and two former
employees of Soffe at our Santa Fe Springs, California
distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and
hour laws and unfair business practices the same or substantially
similar to those alleged in the Complaint and seeking the same or
substantially similar relief as sought in the Complaint. This
complaint is brought as a class action and seeks to include all
current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe, our Delta
Activewear business unit, the Soffe independent contractor named
in the Complaint and an individual employee of such contractor
within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage
and hour laws. Delta Apparel, Inc. and the contractor employee
have since been voluntarily dismissed from the case and the
remaining defendants are Junkfood, Soffe, and the Soffe
contractor.

"On September 17, 2015, an agreement in principle was reached
between all parties to settle the above-referenced wage and hour
matters. Pursuant to that agreement, the defendants in the matters
have agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $300,000 in exchange for
a comprehensive release of all claims at issue in the matters.
Delta Apparel, Inc., Soffe and Junkfood have collectively agreed
to contribute $200,000 towards the aggregate settlement amount,
which remains in our accrued expenses as of April 2, 2016. The
settlement agreement requires the approval of the applicable court
before it can be finalized and the parties are currently seeking
the necessary approvals."


DJO FINANCE: Still Defends Pain Pump Litigation
-----------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend Pain Pump Litigation.

The Company said, "Over the past 9 years, we were named in
numerous product liability lawsuits in the United States involving
our prior distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product
(pain pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was
distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We currently
are a defendant in one U.S. case and a lawsuit in Canada which has
been granted class action status for a class of approximately 45
claimants. We discontinued our sale of these products in the
second quarter of 2009. These cases have been brought against the
manufacturers and certain distributors of these pumps. All of
these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with certain
anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain shoulder surgeries
or, less commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted in cartilage
damage to the plaintiffs. Except for the payment by the Company of
policy deductibles or self-insured retentions, our products
liability carriers in three policy periods have paid the defense
costs and settlements related to these claims, subject to
reservation of rights to deny coverage for customary matters,
including punitive damages and off-label promotion.  We have
engaged in settlement discussions with the Canadian plaintiffs and
have reached an agreement in principal to settle these claims with
a payment in the first quarter of 2017 in an amount that is
covered in part by the remaining limits under the insurance policy
for the applicable reporting period, with the balance to be paid
by the Company, which amount is not material to the Company's
financial position or the results of its operations."


DOTHAN CITY: Faces "Stokes" Suit in D.C. M.D. Ala.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the City of Dothan. The case is
captioned Rickey Stokes, on behalf of himself and a class of
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, City of Dothan,
Alabama, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00430-WC (M.D. Ala., June
13, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Wallace Capel, Jr.

Dothan is a city in the southeastern corner of the U.S. state of
Alabama, situated approximately 20 miles west of the Georgia state
line and 16 miles north of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Evan Yarbrough, Esq.
          Motley, Motley & Yarbrough
          117 East Main Street
          Dothan, AL 36301
          Telephone: (334) 793 0051
          Facsimile: (334) 793 9845
          E-mail: motley@graceba.net

               - and -

          Dustin Judd Fowler, Esq.
          Buntin, Etheredge & Dowling, L.L.C.
          185 N. Oates Street
          Dothan, AL 36301
          Telephone: (334) 793 3377
          Facsimile: (334) 793 7756
          E-mail: dustinjfowler@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Stephen Talmadge Etheredge Sr., Esq.
          Buntin, Etheredge & Fowler LLC
          P O Box 1193
          Dothan, AL 36302
          Telephone: (334) 793 3377
          Facsimile: (334) 793 7756
          E-mail: setheredge@graceba.net


FIFTH STREET: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
--------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Finance 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 an amended complaint
has been filed in the shareholder class action.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative
securities class-action lawsuits. The first lawsuit was filed on
October 1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Howard Randall,
Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly Randall
Irrevocable Trust UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street Finance Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759. The second lawsuit was filed on
October 14, 2015, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-Cottrell v.
Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01488. The
third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-08908.

On April 1, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the Southern District of New York consolidating these three class
action lawsuits, Case No. 1:15-cv-07759. The defendants in the
consolidated case are Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman,
Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, and Richard
Petrocelli (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), the
Company and FSAM.

The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of investors who
purchased common stock of the Company between July 7, 2014, and
February 6, 2015, inclusive.  The lawsuits allege in general terms
that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme
designed to artificially inflate the true value of the Company's
investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase
FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as the asset manager and
investment adviser of the Company.  For example, the lawsuits
allege that the Company improperly delayed the write-down of five
of its investments until the fiscal quarter ending in December 31,
2014, after FSAM conducted its initial public offering ("IPO") in
October 2014, when the Company should have taken the write-down
before FSAM's IPO.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not
specified the amount of damages being sought in any of the
actions.


FIFTH STREET: Defending Against "Craig" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Finance 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 a putative stockholder
class action lawsuit captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman,
et. al. was filed on January 29, 2016, in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. The complaint names certain current
officers and/or directors, consisting of Bernard D. Berman, James
Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn, Richard P.
Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G. Owens and
Douglas F. Ray, the Investment Adviser, FSAM, the Company and
Fifth Street Holdings L.P. as defendants. The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by, among other things, perpetuating and
failing to terminate the Company's investment advisory agreement
with Fifth Street Management LLC; seeking to have existing board
members and management remain in place; and including certain
disclosures in the Company's proxy materials, including, among
other things, the effect that termination of the investment
advisory agreement would have on the Company's debt obligations,
business and operations. The complaint seeks, among other things,
an injunction preventing the Company and its board of directors
from soliciting proxies for the 2016 annual meeting until
additional disclosures are made; a declaration that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to terminate the
investment advisory agreement and by acting to have the Company's
board of directors and Fifth Street Management LLC remain in
place; a declaration that any shares repurchased by the Company
after the record date of the 2016 annual meeting will not be
considered outstanding shares for purposes of the stockholder
approvals sought at the annual meeting; and awarding plaintiff
costs and disbursements.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: "Larroque" Parties Ordered to Show Cause
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ELIZABETH LARROQUE, Plaintiff, v. FIRST
ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-
cv-04684-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered
the parties to show cause as to whether the court has subject
matter jurisdiction over the action.

Elizabeth Larroque briought a putative class action against First
Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. for alleged violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  On January 4, 2016, the
court granted First Advantage's motion to stay the action pending
the United States Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins.  The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Spokeo on May 16,
2016. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), as revised
(May 24, 2016).  The parties submitted a joint case management
statement on June 9, 2016, and the court held a further case
management conference on June 16, 2016.  Although the parties
agreed in their joint statement that the court has federal
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331, Judge
Corley has concerns regarding Larroque's standing in light of the
Supreme Court's Spokeo decision.

A full-text copy of Judge Corley's June 21, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/8maGik from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Larroque, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Roald Dion-
Kindem -- peter@dion-kindemlaw.com -- The Dion-Kindem Law Firm &
Lonnie Clifford Blanchard, III, The Blanchard Law Group, APC.

First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Esther Slater McDonald -- emcdonald@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Frederick Thomas Smith --
fsmith@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro hac vice, G. Daniel
Newland -- dnewland@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Eric
Michael Lloyd -- elloyd@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


FIRST TRINITY: FBLIC to Oppose Class Certification Request
----------------------------------------------------------
First Trinity Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Family Benefit
Life Insurance Company ("FBLIC") intends to oppose a request for
class certification, as well as to defend vigorously against the
individual allegations.

Prior to its acquisition by Trinity Life Insurance Company
("TLIC"), FBLIC developed, marketed, and sold life insurance
products known as "Decreasing Term to 95" policies. On January 17,
2013, FBLIC's Board of Directors voted that, effective March 1,
2013, it was not approving, and therefore was not providing, a
dividend for the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On November 22,
2013, three individuals who owned Decreasing Term to 95 policies
filed a Petition in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri
asserting claims against FBLIC relating to FBLIC's decision to not
provide a dividend under the Decreasing Term to 95 policies.

On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the
original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach
of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that
FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing
Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend
sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy which
would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to 95
policies the same as that provided during the first year of
coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its
sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented that
the owners of these policies would always be entitled to dividends
to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and that the
owners would have a level death benefit without an increase in
premium.

The main difference between the original Petition and the amended
Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief
based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95 policies
should be reformed so that they will provide a level death benefit
for a level premium payment until the policyholder reaches 95
years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the amended
Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend provisions
in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri law,
specifically, Sec. 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the policies are
void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all premiums
collected under these policies. FBLIC has moved to dismiss Count
VIII of the amended Petition. No hearing has been held or ruling
made on this Motion.

FBLIC denies the allegations in the amended Petition and will
continue to defend against them.

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify
the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed an
affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has
collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term
to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs will
seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are declared
void.

FBLIC intends to oppose the request for class certification, as
well as to defend vigorously against the individual allegations.
The Company is unable to determine the potential magnitude of the
claims in the event of a final certification and the plaintiffs
prevailing on this substantive action.

First Trinity Financial Corporation (the "Company" or "FTFC") is
the parent holding company of Trinity Life Insurance Company
("TLIC"), Family Benefit Life Insurance Company ("FBLIC") and
First Trinity Capital Corporation ("FTCC"). The Company was
incorporated in Oklahoma on April 19, 2004, for the primary
purpose of organizing a life insurance subsidiary.


FOUR OAKS FINCORP: Class Suits Pending in Fla. and North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that two class action
lawsuits remain pending in Florida and North Carolina.

In October 2013, multiple putative class action lawsuits were
filed in United States district courts across the country against
a number of different banks based on the banks' alleged role in
"payday lending". Four of these lawsuits, filed in the Northern
District of Georgia, the Middle District of North Carolina, the
District of Maryland, and the Southern District of Florida, named
the Bank as one of the defendants. The lawsuits allege that, by
processing Automatic Clearing House transactions indirectly on
behalf of "payday" lenders, the Bank is illegally participating in
an enterprise to collect unlawful debts and is therefore liable to
plaintiffs for damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. The lawsuits also allege a variety of
state law claims.

The Bank moved to dismiss each of these lawsuits.

The Georgia action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and
the District of Maryland granted the motion and dismissed the
case, which the parties subsequently settled while on appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Of the two remaining lawsuits, there are no updates to the
lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida, which has been
stayed pending arbitration of the plaintiff's claims against the
Bank's co-defendants.

The Middle District of North Carolina granted the motion in part
and denied it in part; the case against the Bank had been stayed
pending resolution of motions to compel arbitration filed by the
Bank's co-defendants, and the Court has not yet determined whether
the case against the Bank will proceed pending appeal by those co-
defendants.


FOX CHASE: Motion to Stay Proceedings Granted
---------------------------------------------
Fox Chase 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 has granted
Fox Chase and each of its directors' Motion to Stay proceedings
with the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

On December 8, 2015, Univest Corporation of Pennsylvania
("Univest") and Fox Chase entered into a merger agreement (the
"Merger Agreement") that provides that the Company will merge with
and into Univest, with Univest remaining as the surviving entity.
Following the merger, Fox Chase Bank will merge with and into
Univest Bank and Trust Co., with Univest Bank and Trust Co.
remaining as the surviving entity.

Fox Chase received two letters from attorneys representing a
purported shareholder demanding that the Fox Chase board remedy
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger
and alleged failures to make all required material disclosures
necessary for Fox Chase shareholders to make a fully informed
voting decision on the merger. The letters assert that the
proposed transaction undervalues Fox Chase and that Fox Chase's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly refusing to
adequately shop the company and maximize shareholder value, and
that the registration statement initially filed on February 26,
2016 fails to make all material disclosures and contains
misleading statements about the merger. The letters demand that
Fox Chase's board, among other things: (i) undertake all
appropriate methods to maximize shareholder value and remove
alleged conflicts of interest; (ii) remedy alleged disclosure
violations that do not allow Fox Chase shareholders to make a
fully informed voting decision; (iii) revise the merger agreement
to eliminate certain deal protection devices; and (iv) refrain
from completing the merger.

On February 19, 2016, the Fox Chase board of directors established
a special committee of independent directors to review and
investigate the allegations in the demand letters, and to make
recommendations to the board regarding what actions Fox Chase
should take as a result of the demand letters. The committee has
retained an independent law firm as its legal counsel.

The purported Fox Chase shareholder identified in the letters
filed on or about March 17, 2016, a purported class action and
derivative complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania captioned Michael Rubin v. Roger H. Ballou,
et al, No. 2016-05079-0. The lawsuit names as defendants each
current member of Fox Chase's board of directors and Univest, and
also names Fox Chase as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges
that the Fox Chase directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the transaction, that the directors and executive
officers have conflicts of interest related to the transaction,
that the registration filed on February 26, 2016 failed to
disclose material information relating to the transaction, and
that Univest aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent
consummation of the transaction, rescission of any terms of the
transaction to the extent already implemented, and monetary
damages resulting from the alleged wrongful misconduct of the
defendants. In response to the lawsuit, Fox Chase and each of its
directors has filed Preliminary Objections to the complaint and a
Motion to Stay the proceedings with the Court of Common Pleas of
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The Motion to Stay was granted on
May 5, 2016.


GENIE ENERGY: "Ferrare" Lawsuit Still Pending in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy 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 the Company continues
to defend the case by Anthony Ferrare.

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The
complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named
plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and
current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with
variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of
IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.

On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively,
dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff.

On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy's
motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law
in further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2015, the
Court granted IDT Energy's motion to stay and denied its motion to
dismiss without prejudice.

The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.

The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy
International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie
Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc.
("GOGAS").  Genie Retail Energy owns retail energy providers
("REPs"), including IDT Energy, Inc. ("IDT Energy") and Residents
Energy, Inc. ("Residents Energy"), and energy brokerage and
marketing services.


GENIE ENERGY: "McLaughlin" Lawsuit Still Pending in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy 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 the Company continues
to defend the case by Louis McLaughlin.

On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
contending that he and other class members were injured as a
result of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself
and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a
variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT
Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy's rebate program
from July 2, 2008. On December 19, 2014, IDT Energy filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint. On December 9, 2015, the Court denied
IDT Energy's motion to dismiss without prejudice so as to allow
McLaughlin to file an amended complaint. On January 22, 2016, the
named plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of himself
and all IDT Energy customers in New York State against IDT Energy,
Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation,
and Genie Energy Ltd. (collectively, "IDT Energy"). Subsequently,
on February 22, 2016, IDT Energy moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. The named plaintiff opposed that motion and the parties
are currently awaiting a decision from the Court. In the meantime,
the parties are engaged in limited discovery. The Company believes
that the claims in the amended complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the action.

The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy
International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie
Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc.
("GOGAS").  Genie Retail Energy owns retail energy providers
("REPs"), including IDT Energy, Inc. ("IDT Energy") and Residents
Energy, Inc. ("Residents Energy"), and energy brokerage and
marketing services.


GENIE ENERGY: "Aks" Lawsuit Still Pending in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy 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 the Company continues
to defend the case by Kimberly Aks.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other
class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's alleged
unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed
the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents
who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008
and the present. On November 6, 2014, the Court denied IDT
Energy's motion to dismiss the complaint and the parties are
currently engaged in discovery. Most recently, on April 20, 2016,
the named plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of
herself and all IDT Energy customers in New Jersey against IDT
Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International
Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd. To date, only IDT Energy has
been served with the amended complaint, for which a response is
due on or before May 25, 2016. The Company believes that the
claims in the amended complaint are also without merit and intends
to vigorously defend the action.

The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy
International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie
Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc.
("GOGAS").  Genie Retail Energy owns retail energy providers
("REPs"), including IDT Energy, Inc. ("IDT Energy") and Residents
Energy, Inc. ("Residents Energy"), and energy brokerage and
marketing services.


HCSB FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Shelley" Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal in the class
action by Robert Shelley remains pending.

On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit against the Company and the Bank in the Court of
Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South
Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The complaint
alleges that the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons
were contacted by employees of the Bank, that those employees
solicited a sale of Bank stock, and that the Bank employees did
not disclose material information about the Bank's financial
condition prior to their respective purchases of stock. The
complaint seeks the certification of a class action to include all
purchasers of Bank stock solicited between July 1, 2009 and
December 31, 2011. The plaintiff has asserted violations of the
South Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil
conspiracy, and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company and the Bank made a motion for summary judgment in
March 2014, which the court granted on April 8, 2014. Robert
Shelley subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied. Mr. Shelly subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the
South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Both parties have completed their briefing and it is expected this
matter will be heard in the second quarter of 2016 by the South
Carolina Court of Appeals.  The ultimate outcome is unknown at
this time and a reasonably possible loss cannot be estimated.


HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that one shareholder class
action lawsuit remains pending.

Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits styled as class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against us and several then-current officers of the Company
alleging that we made false and misleading statements that
artificially inflated our stock prices.  The lawsuits allege,
among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes
and that we lacked adequate internal controls.  The lawsuits seek
damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not
specified. On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff, which remains pending. One of the
March 2014 lawsuits has now been dismissed voluntarily, and the
parties to the remaining suit await the issuance of a scheduling
order in that matter.

"We have assessed the status of the remaining March 2014 lawsuit
and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably
possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision has been
made in the consolidated financial statements. We are unable to
estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the
outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our
financial condition and results of operations," the Company said.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oral Argument Held in Contact Lens Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that in March and April
2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by
contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United
States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI), other
contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging
vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of
contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers
reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and
retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could
be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and
injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action complaint in November 2015, and in December 2015, JJVCI and
other defendants filed motions to dismiss. Oral argument on the
motions to dismiss was held in March 2016.  No further updates
were provided in the Company's SEC report.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Over XARELTO Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that in August 2015, two
third-party payors filed a purported class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer
entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed and
promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less
expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose
its risks. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.


KELLY SERVICES: Settlement Reached in "Hillson" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that the Company has reached
a settlement in a nationwide class action lawsuit.

The Company is a party to a pending nationwide class action
lawsuit entitled Hillson et.al. v Kelly Services. The suit alleges
that current and former temporary employees of Kelly Services are
entitled to monetary damages for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act requirement that the notice and disclosure form
provided to employees for purposes of conducting a background
screening be a standalone document.

On April 20, 2016, the parties entered into a formal settlement
agreement. The parties still must secure court approval of the
settlement.

In light of amounts previously expensed and anticipated recoveries
from third parties, Kelly recorded an accrual in the fourth
quarter of 2015 of $4.1 million (in accounts payable and accrued
liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet) to reflect the
expected cost of the tentative settlement.

Kelly Services is a global workforce solutions company, serving
customers of all sizes in a variety of industries.


KLACORALGABLES LLC: "Davila" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Susana Davila, and other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. KLACORALGABLES, LLC,
ROBERTO X ORTEGA, and DANA M GRIMES, the Defendants, Case No. 16-
012431 CA 21, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-22149-
FAM to the proceeding. The Assigned Judge is Hon. Federico A.
Moreno.

KLA Schools of Coral Gables is a leader in the Reggio Emilia-
inspired teaching philosophy, proven to foster more above-average
students.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sheila Marie Cesarano, Esq.
          Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN
          Miami Center
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 379 9103
          Facsimile: 347 7386
          E-mail: scesarano@shutts.com
                  rgl@shutts.com


KRAFT HEINZ: "Ambers" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Michael Ambers, individually
and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Company, Kraft Foods Groups, Inc., and
Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-02455, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois - (Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-06158 to the proceeding.

Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names.

The "Ambers" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ean M Schreiber, Esq.
          Edwin C Schreiber, Esq.
          Eric A Schreiber, Esq.
          SCHREIBER AND SCHREIBER INC
          16633 Ventura Boulevard Suite 711
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 789 2577
          Facsimile: (818) 789 3391
          E-mail: ean@schreiberlawfirm.com
                  ed@schreiberlawfirm.com
                  eric@schreiberlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander M Smith, Esq.
          Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          633 West Fifth Street Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239 5100
          Facsimile: (213) 239 5199
          E-mail: asmith@jenner.com
                  klee@jenner.com


KRAFT HEINZ: "Ford" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Karen Ford, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz
Foods Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00398, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania Western, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06182 to the proceeding.

Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names.

The "Ford" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592 1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John S. Stapleton, Esq.
          Alan C. Promer, Esq.
          HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL AND PUDLIN
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496 7048
          E-mail: jstapleton@hangley.com
                  apromer@hangley.com


KRAFT HEINZ: "Lewis" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John Lewis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft
Heinz Foods Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00400, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06160 to the proceeding.

Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names.

The "Lewis" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Andrew Mcshane, Esq.
          Sean Clinton Woods, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568 2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568 2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  cwoods@audetlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239 5152
          Facsimile: (213) 239 5162
          E-mail: klee@jenner.com


KRAFT HEINZ: "Quinn" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rosemary Quinn and Alfonso Fata,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. The Kraft Heinz Company, the Defendant, Case No.
7:16-cv-01471, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05818 to the
proceeding.

Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names.

The "Quinn" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          Facsimile: (845) 562 3492
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Class Action Deal in "Brown" Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JASON DAVID BROWN, LASZLO BOZSO, and MERIS
DUDZIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., and LEXISNEXIS
SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants. APRIL INGRAM-FLEMING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, d/b/a LOWE'S, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 5:13-CV-00079-RLV-DSC (W.D.N.C.), Judge Richard
L. Voorhees granted the plaintiffs' motions for final approval of
class action settlement and for approval of attorneys' fees and
costs, and class representative service awards.

The proposed resolution of the litigation includes the award of
benefits for eligible class members including gift cards or cash
payments to qualified settlement class members who submit
appropriate election forms.

Judge Voorhees finally appointed Caddell & Chapman, Consumer
Litigation Associates, P.C., O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora,
Co., LPA, Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Center, PLC, Sellers,
Ayers, Dortch & Lyons, P.A., Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, P.A., and
Wallace & Graham, P.A. as class counsel for the settlement class.

Judge Voorhees also finally appointed the plaintiffs Jason Brown,
Laszlo Bozso, Meris Dudzic and April Ingram-Fleming as the class
representatives, and American Legal Claims Service, LLC as the
claims administrator to perform the duties assigned to them in the
settlement agreement.

A full-text copy of Judge Voorhees' June 21, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/MesLs6 from Leagle.com.

Jason David Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Rocco Pecora
-- apecora@omdplaw.com -- O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co.
LPA, pro hac vice, Craig Carley Marchiando -- craig@clalegal.com -
- Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, Cynthia B.
Chapman, Caddell & Chapman, pro hac vice, John S. Hughes --
jhughes@wallacegraham.com -- Wallace & Graham, P.A.,Leonard
Anthony Bennett -- leonard@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation
Associates, Matthew Anderson Dooley -- mdooley@omdplaw.com --
O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co. LPA, pro hac vice, Michael
A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, pro hac vice, Mona Lisa Wallace --
mwallace@wallacegraham.com -- Wallace & Graham, PA & Brett E.
Dressler -- bdressler@sellersayers.com -- Sellers, Hinshaw, Ayers,
Dortch & Lyons, PA.

Laszlo Bozso, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Rocco Pecora,
O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co. LPA, pro hac vice, Brett E.
Dressler, Sellers, Hinshaw, Ayers, Dortch & Lyons, PA, Craig
Carley Marchiando, Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., pro hac
vice, Cynthia B. Chapman, Caddell & Chapman, pro hac vice, John S.
Hughes, Wallace & Graham, P.A., Matthew Anderson Dooley, O'Toole
McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co. LPA, pro hac vice, Michael A.
Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, pro hac vice & Mona Lisa Wallace,
Wallace & Graham, PA.

Meris Dudzic, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Rocco Pecora,
O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co. LPA, pro hac vice, Brett E.
Dressler, Sellers, Hinshaw, Ayers, Dortch & Lyons, PA, Craig
Carley Marchiando, Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., pro hac
vice, Cynthia B. Chapman, Caddell & Chapman, pro hac vice, Ian B.
Lyngklip, Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Center, PLC, pro hac
vice, John S. Hughes, Wallace & Graham, P.A.,Matthew Anderson
Dooley, O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co. LPA, pro hac vice,
Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, pro hac vice & Mona Lisa
Wallace, Wallace & Graham, PA.

April Ingram-Fleming, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Brandon J.
Hill, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., pro hac vice, Daniel Ray
Francis, Wallace & Graham P.A., John S. Hughes, Wallace & Graham,
P.A., Luis A. Cabassa, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., pro hac vice,
Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, pro hac vice & Mona Lisa
Wallace, Wallace & Graham, PA.

Lowe's Companies, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Brent Alan Rosser -- brosser@hunton.com -- Hunton &
Williams, Kevin James White -- kwhite@hunton.com -- Hunton &
Williams LLP, pro hac vice & Robert T. Quackenboss --
rquackenboss@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, LLP, pro hac vice.

First Advantage Background Corp., Defendant, represented by C.
Knox Withers -- knox.withers@agg.com -- Arnall Golden Gregory,
LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Patrick Cadagin --
edward.cadagin@agg.com -- Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, pro hac vice,
Henry R. Chalmers -- henry.chalmers@agg.com -- Arnall Golden
Gregory, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey S. Jacobovitz --
jeffrey.jacobovitz@agg.com -- Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP, pro hac
vice, Pearlynn Gilleece Houck -- phouck@robinsonbradshaw.com --
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA & Robert Walker Fuller, III --
rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.
A..


MARIO BADESCU: Approval of Settlement Deal in "Choi" Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three affirmed the trial court's judgment entering a final order
approving the class and the stipulation of settlement in the case
captioned WANKYU CHOI et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents; MARY
RESTAINO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MARIO BADESCU SKIN
CARE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. B257480 (Cal.
Ct. App.).

Jae K. Lee and Wankyu Choi sued Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc. and
Mario Badescu for marketing and labeling two face creams without
disclosing all of the ingredients.  The plaintiffs sought economic
damages and equitable relief on behalf of themselves and a
nationwide class of face cream purchasers.  Before the class was
certified, the defendants agreed to settle the action.  Nine class
members, who timely objected, appealed raising numerous
contentions.

The Court of Appeals of California held that the objectors have
not demonstrated error.  The appellate court also held that the
one-time publication of the notice of settlement did not violate
the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 21, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/8YoDqk from Leagle.com.

The C2 Law Group, Erica E. Hayward; The Rudd Law Firm, Christopher
L. Rudd -- clrudd@c2lawgroup.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Gary
E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- and Esfand Y. Nafisi --
eyn@girardgibbs.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants Mary
Restaino, Geoffrey Yu, Theresa Stern Valentic, Betty Huang and Zoe
Herold.

Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, Ronald A. Marron, Skye Resendes;
and C. Benjamin Nutley for Plaintiff and Appellant Donna McLaren.

Law Office of Young W. Ryu, Young W. Ryu; Law Offices of Gerald S.
Ohn and Gerald S. Ohn -- gerald@ohnlaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.

Tucker Ellis, Ronie M. Schmelz -- ronie.schmelz@tuckerellis.com --
and Rebecca A. Lefler for Defendants and Respondents.


MARTIN O'BOYLE: Dismissal of "Wantman" Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed the
dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint in the case captioned TOWN
OF GULF STREAM, a municipality organized and existing under the
laws of Florida on its own behalf and on behalf of those
municipalities similarly situated, WANTMAN GROUP, INC., a domestic
company on its own behalf and on behalf of those companies
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARTIN E. O'BOYLE,
an individual, CHRISTOPHER O'HARE, an individual, WILLIAM RING, an
individual, JONATHAN O'BOYLE, an individual, DENISE DEMARTINI, an
individual, GIOVANI MESA, an individual, et al., Defendants-
Appellees, No. 15-13433, Non-Argument Calendar  (11th Cir.).

The Town of Gulf Stream, Florida and its contractor Wantman Group,
Inc. appealed the dismissal of their class action complaint under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
The plaintiffs' complaint was premised on, among other actions,
the defendants' alleged efforts to inundate the town with public
records requests in an attempt to cause a violation of Florida's
Public Records Act, and then to threaten litigation and the
possibility of liability for attorneys' fees to extort an
unreasonable settlement.  The district court recognized the "very
difficult situation" the plaintiffs allegedly found themselves in,
but nevertheless held that the plaintiffs failed to allege at
least two predicate acts in support of their RICO claim.  After
careful review, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs'
allegations, although troubling, fail to state a claim under RICO.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's June 21, 2016 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/ChHBRI from Leagle.com.


MATCH GROUP: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Match 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 Company intends to
defend against a securities class action litigation.

The Company said, "on February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide
class action was filed in federal court in Texas against the
Company, five of its officers and directors, and twelve
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering in November
2015.  See David M. Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-
cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas).  The
complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with its initial public offering
were materially false and misleading given their failure to state
that: (i) the Company's Non-dating business would miss its revenue
projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU
would decline substantially in the quarter ended December 31,
2015.  The complaint asserts that these alleged failures to timely
disclose material information caused the Company's stock price to
drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015."

The complaint pleads claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for
untrue statements of material fact in, or omissions of material
facts from, the registration statement, the prospectus, and
related communications in violation of Sections 11 and 12 and, as
to the officer/director defendants only, control-person liability
under Section 15 for the Company's alleged violations.  The
complaint seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified
amount and attorneys' fees.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).

On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order
granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge
Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.

On April 27, 2016, various current or former shareholders in the
Company and their respective law firms filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for
the putative class.  On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders:
(i) consolidating the Chan case into the Stein case, (ii)
approving the parties' stipulation to extend the defendants' time
to respond to the complaint until after the Court has appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putative class and has set
a schedule for the plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint
and the defendants' response to that pleading, and (iii) referring
the various motions for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead
or liaison counsel for the putative class to a United States
Magistrate Judge for determination.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
without merit and will defend vigorously against them.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products.  It operates a
portfolio of over 45 dating brands, including Match, OkCupid,
PlentyOfFish, Tinder, Meetic, Twoo, OurTime, BlackPeopleMeet and
FriendScout24.


MDL 1688: Pfizer Updates on Celebrex and Bextra Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended April 3, 2016, that "beginning in late 2004, several
purported class actions were filed in federal and state courts
alleging that Pfizer and certain of our current and former
officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the
safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June 2005, the federal actions
were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities,
Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, the
court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a class
consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock
between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005. In May 2014, the
court in the Multi-District Litigation granted Pfizer's motion to
exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' loss causation and
damages expert. We subsequently filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by their
expert. In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
leave to submit an amended report, and granted our motion for
summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their
entirety. In August 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. In April 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings."


MDL 2342: Zoloft Personal Injury Litigation Winding Down
--------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended April 3, 2016, that a number of individual lawsuits and
multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our
subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal
injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft. Among
other types of actions, the Zoloft personal injury litigation
includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result
of the purported ingestion of Zoloft by women during pregnancy.
Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and
punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from
the sale of Zoloft. In April 2012, the federal birth-defect cases
were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Zoloft Products Liability
Litigation MDL-2342) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. A number of plaintiffs have voluntarily
dismissed their actions. In April 2016, the District Court granted
Pfizer's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of
almost all of the remaining plaintiffs.


MDL 2691: Viagra Suits v. Pfizer Ongoing
----------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended April 3, 2016, that a number of individual and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various
federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed
melanoma and/or the exacerbation of melanoma as a result of the
purported ingestion of Viagra. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages.  In April 2016, the federal actions were
transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-
District Litigation (In Re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products
Liability Litigation, MDL-2691) in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends "Owens" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons for whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
established a retained asset account, known as a TCA, to pay death
benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") plan. The action alleges that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's use of the TCA as the settlement option for
life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies
violates Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's fiduciary duties
under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company realized on accounts
owned by members of the putative class. The court denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Robainas" Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal in the
reinsurance litigation, Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009
through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were
subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions were
consolidated with the Robainas action. The consolidated complaint
alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under
Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty
in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. On October 9,
2015, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, finding that
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not allege
any concrete injury as a result of the alleged conduct. Plaintiffs
appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Intoccia" Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal in the case,
Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., April
20, 2015), is ongoing.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009 through 2015
(the "Annuities"). The court consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case,
and the consolidated, amended complaint alleges that Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company inadequately disclosed in its statutory
annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with
affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using
"contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly
misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its
reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the
premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to
the Annuities. The Court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning of the
Robainas decision. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Affirmed Order in "Fauley"
---------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an intermediate
appeals court has affirmed an order in the case, Fauley v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. (Circuit Court of the
19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014).

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and a former MetLife financial
services representative, alleging that the defendants sent
unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The court issued
a final order certifying a nationwide settlement class and
approving a settlement under which Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as
to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014. On
March 23, 2016, the intermediate appellate court affirmed the
trial court's order.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends "Voshall" Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, April 8, 2015).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and
April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living
adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Calif. Court Dismissed "Martin" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015).

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: To Defend Against "Lau" ERISA Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015).

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
"Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds" within the past six
years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and
challenges the "spread" with respect to the stable value fund
group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations
focus on the methodology Metropolitan Life Insurance Company uses
to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which
plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable
value option to another investment option, the procedures followed
if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure
provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as
well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: To Defend Against "Newman" Case in N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend against the case, Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016).

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


MICROSOFT CORP: U.S. Judge Allows Pro-Sys to Issue Subpoena
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PRO-SYS
CONSULTANTS, Case No. 16-mc-80117-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Donna M.
Ryu granted the ex parte application filed by Pro-Sys Consultants
and Neil Godfrey seeking permission to issue a deposition subpoena
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1782 to obtain testimony for use in
a proceeding before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada.

A full-text copy of Judge Ryu's June 21, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/SP6Mga from Leagle.com.

Pro-Sys and Godfrey are plaintiffs in a certified class action now
pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver
Registry, Canada.  Pro-Sys and Godfrey alleged that Microsoft
engaged in anticompetitive conduct globally with respect to the
markets for operating systems, middleware, and applications
software from 1988 to the present.  Microsoft denied the
allegations.  In connection with the Canadian action, Pro-Sys and
Godfrey sought to subpoena Louis John Doerr III, who is a
technology venture capitalist at the firm of Kleiner Perkins
Caufield & Byers, and a former board member of Netscape.  Pro-Sys
and Godfrey contended that Mr. Doerr possesses first-hand
knowledge of Microsoft's conduct in attempting to halt Netscape's
success as a web browser and prevent it from growing into a full-
blown platform for applications that could minimize the role of
Microsoft's dominant operation system software, Windows.

In re Ex Parte Application of Pro-Sys Consultants and Neil
Godfrey, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr. --
bgralewski@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP.


MONTGOMERY, GA: May Use Taxes to Fund Convenience Centers
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MONTGOMERY COUNTY, GEORGIA, v. HAMILTON,
A16A0541 (Ga. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fifth
Division, reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to
the plaintiffs and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Montgomery County, Georgia appealed from the trial court's denial
of its motion for summary judgment, as well as the court's grant
of summary judgment against it in the class-action lawsuit seeking
a tax refund on behalf of S. Keith Hamilton and similarly situated
taxpayers residing in the unincorporated area of the County.
Specifically, Hamilton sought a refund of Insurance Premium Tax
proceeds (IPTP) that he alleged were used unlawfully by the County
to fund certain "convenience centers" for the purpose of
collecting and disposing of solid waste.  On appeal, the County
argued that the trial court erred in holding that its use of IPTP
to pay the operating costs of the convenience centers was
unauthorized under OCGA section 33-8-8.3, in ordering the County
to refund those proceeds to Hamilton and the other class members,
and by including its expenditure of IPTP from tax years 2006
through 2009 in the total amount of the awarded refund.

In reversing the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeals of
Georgia held that the County's use of IPTP to fund its convenience
centers may be authorized by the statute's catchall provision if
it meets that subsection's "primary benefit" requirement.  The
case was thus remanded for the trial court to address this issue
and to reconsider, in light of the appellate court's opinion,
whether the County's use of IPTP to fund its convenience centers
is authorized under OCGA section 33-8-8.3 (a)(1)(E).

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 21, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/p9x3Mx from Leagle.com.


NORTEK INC: Motions to Dismiss and Strike Pending in Tenn. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortek, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the Court in the
Tennessee action has not yet issued a ruling on Nortek's motions
to dismiss and to strike class allegations.

In an action initiated on May 21, 2014, Nortek Global HVAC LLC
("Nortek Global HVAC"), our wholly owned subsidiary, was named as
a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in Florida, Harris,
et al. v. Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21884-BB,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  In addition, in an action initiated on
October 3, 2014, Nortek, Inc., Nortek Global HVAC LLC and Nortek
Global HVAC Latin America, Inc. were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit in Tennessee, Bauer, et al. v.
Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01940, filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.

These lawsuits allege that the copper evaporator and condenser
coils in Nortek Global HVAC's residential heating and cooling
products are susceptible to a type of potential corrosion that can
result in coil leaks and eventual failure of the units.  The
Florida action sought compensatory damages associated with Nortek
Global HVAC's alleged wrongdoing, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Tennessee action seeks damages
associated with repairing, retrofitting and/or replacing the
allegedly defective products, the loss of value due to the alleged
defect, property damages associated with the alleged defect,
injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On January 29, 2016, the Court in the Florida action entered an
order denying the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of Florida
consumers. Subsequently, the Company reached a nominal settlement
with the two named plaintiffs in the Florida action, and the
action was dismissed.

On April 18, 2016, the Court in the Tennessee action heard
arguments on Nortek's pending motions to dismiss and to strike
class allegations. No ruling with respect to such motions has been
issued to date.

The Company said, "The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses against the claims in the Tennessee action.  At this
time, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material loss
in the Tennessee action is remote and has not recognized a loss or
liability in such action; however, it is possible that events
could occur that would change the likelihood of a material loss,
which could ultimately have a material impact on our business.
The Company will continue to assess the likelihood of a material
loss as the Tennessee action progresses."


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Oppose Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in
a shareholder class action lawsuit has filed an answering brief in
opposition to the motion to dismiss.

On June 19, 2015, two of the purported shareholders filed a
complaint purportedly suing on behalf of a class of similarly
situated shareholders and derivatively on behalf of the Company in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The lawsuit names Cognate
BioServices, Inc., Toucan Partners, Toucan Capital Fund III, our
CEO Linda Powers and the Company's Board of Directors as
defendants, and names the Company as a "nominal defendant" with
respect to the derivative claims.  The complaint generally objects
to certain transactions between the Company and Cognate and the
Toucan entities, in which Cognate and the Toucan entities provided
services and financing to the Company, or agreed to conversion of
debts owed to them by the Company into equity.  The complaint
seeks unspecified monetary relief for the Company and the
plaintiffs, and various forms of equitable relief, including
disgorgement of allegedly improper benefits, rescission of the
challenged transactions, and an order forbidding similar
transactions in the future.

On September 1, 2015, the Company and other named defendants filed
motions to dismiss.  In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on November 6, 2015.

The Company and the other named defendants filed motions to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on January 19, 2016. The
plaintiffs filed an answering brief in opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 4, 2016.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case.

Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries NW Bio Europe
S.A.R.L, NW Bio Gmbh and Aracaris Capital, Ltd. were organized to
discover and develop innovative immunotherapies for cancer.


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Maryland Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and
CEO Linda Powers have filed a motion to dismiss a shareholder's
amended complaint in Maryland.

On August 26, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  The lawsuit names the Company and CEO
Powers as defendants.

On December 14, 2015, the court appointed two lead plaintiffs. The
Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 12, 2016,
purportedly on behalf of all of those who purchased common stock
in NW Bio between January 13, 2014 and August 21, 2015. The
amended complaint generally claims that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making misleading statements and/or omissions on a variety
of subjects, including the status and results of the Company's
DCVax trials.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Company and Ms. Powers filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint on April 12, 2016.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend the case.

Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries NW Bio Europe
S.A.R.L, NW Bio Gmbh and Aracaris Capital, Ltd. were organized to
discover and develop innovative immunotherapies for cancer.


NUCOR CORPORATION: Antitrust Class Suits Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend antitrust class action lawsuits against steel producers.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed in September
and October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in
July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been
voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The plaintiffs
allege that from April 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007, eight
steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The
plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of all purchasers of steel products from the
defendants in the U.S. between April 1, 2005, and December 31,
2007. Five of the eight defendants have reached court approved
settlements with the plaintiffs.

On September 9, 2015, the District Court entered an order ruling
on issues of class certification. The Court granted in part, and
denied in part, the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class solely
on the issue of whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy in
violation of the antitrust laws, and declining to certify a class
on the issues of antitrust impact and damages.

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

"We continue to believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit
and will continue to vigorously defend against them, but we cannot
at this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate
the range of Nucor's potential exposure and, consequently, have
not recorded any reserves or contingencies related to this
lawsuit," the Company said.


OCEAN POWER: Securities Class Action Resolved for $3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, that
on May 5, 2016, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Class Settlement to settle the securities class
action litigation captioned In re Ocean Power Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 14-3799 (FLW)(LHG) (District of
New Jersey) (the "Securities Class Action"), which is pending
against it in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey (the "Court").

If approved by the Court, the Stipulation will resolve the claims
asserted in the Securities Class Action against the Company, the
underwriter of the Company's April 4, 2014 public offering, and a
former officer and director of the Company, by a class consisting
of investors in the Company from January 14, 2014 through July 29,
2014, and investors who purchased the Company's securities
pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's April 4, 2014
offering of shares of its common stock, par value $0.001 per share
(the "Common Stock").

The Stipulation will settle the Securities Class Action without
any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the
Company or the other defendants. The Stipulation provides, among
other things, for a settlement payment by or on behalf of the
Company of $3,000,000 in cash, of which the Company will pay
$500,000 and the Company's insurer will pay $2,500,000, and the
issuance by the Company of 380,000 shares of its Common Stock (the
"Settlement Shares") to the class members. In connection with the
settlement, in the Stipulation, the parties have agreed to execute
mutually agreeable releases.

The terms of the Stipulation, including the settlement payment and
the issuance of the Settlement Shares, are subject to approval by
the Court following notice to all class members. The issuance of
the Settlement Shares is expected to be exempt from registration
pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.


Lead Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas I. Porritt
     LEVI & KORSINKSY LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, D.C. 20007
     E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Michael L. Kichline
     Stuart T. Steinberg
     DECHERT LLP
     Cira Centre
     2929 Arch Street,
     Philadelphia, PA 19104
     E-mail: Michael.Kichline@dechert.com
             Stuart.Steinberg@dechert.com

     Jeffrey J. Greenbaum
     SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C.
     One Riverfront Plaza
     Newark, NJ 07102
     E-mail: jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com

     Ian Shapiro
     Stephanie B. Turner
     COOLEY LLP
     1114 Avenue of the Americas,
     New York, New York 10036
     E-mail: ishapiro@cooley.com
             sturner@cooley.com

     Tracey Salmon-Smith, Esq.
     BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C.
     325 Columbia Turnpike
     Florham Park, NY 07932
     E-mail: tsmith@bressler.com

     John R. Loftus
     STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
     2029 Century Park East
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     E-mail: jloftus@stroock.com


OGLETHORPE POWER: Superior Court Judge Dismissed Patronage Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oglethorpe Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Superior Court
judge has adopted the special master's proposed orders and granted
the Company's and the other defendants' motions to dismiss both
Patronage capital litigation.

The Company said, "On March 13, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, against us, Georgia
Transmission and three of our member distribution cooperatives.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2014. The
amended complaint challenges the patronage capital distribution
practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives and seeks to certify
a defendant class of all but one of our 38 members. It was filed
by four former consumer-members of four of our members on behalf
of themselves and a proposed class of all former consumer-members
of our members. Plaintiffs claim that approximately 30% of all the
defendants' total allocated patronage capital belongs to former
consumer-members. Plaintiffs also allege that patronage capital
owed to former consumer-members includes patronage capital
allocated by us to our members but not yet distributed to our
members. Plaintiffs claim that the patronage capital of former
consumer-members held by defendants and the proposed defendant
class should be retired immediately when the consumer-members end
their membership by terminating service, or alternatively,
according to a revolving schedule of no longer than 13 years from
the date of its allocation and seek relief to effect such
retirements. Plaintiffs further seek to require the defendants to
adjust rates in order to establish and maintain reasonable
reserves to fund patronage capital retirements on this basis.
Plaintiffs also claim that defendants and the proposed defendant
class should be required to adopt policies to periodically retire
the patronage capital of all consumer-members on a revolving
schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date of its
allocation. Our first mortgage indenture restricts our ability to
distribute patronage capital."

"Although not expected, if we were ordered by the Court to make
distributions of our patronage capital, our first mortgage
indenture would require us to raise our rates to a level
sufficient so that we could comply with the current patronage
capital distribution restrictions, and the rate increases required
to meet the Plaintiffs' demands would be significant for a period
of years.

"On August 20, 2014, a second patronage capital lawsuit was filed
in the Superior Court of DeKalb County against us, Georgia
Transmission, and two of our member distribution cooperatives. The
case was filed by two current consumer-members of the two member
distribution cooperatives named in the lawsuit. Similar to the
above described litigation, this complaint challenges the
patronage capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric
cooperatives; however, one notable difference is that the first
case, described above, seeks to bring claims on behalf of former
members while this second case seeks to bring claims on behalf of
current members. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have
(i) retained patronage capital for an unreasonably long period of
time; (ii) conspired with each other to deprive consumer-members
of their patronage capital; and (iii) breached bylaw provisions
allegedly requiring that patronage capital be retired when the
financial condition of the cooperative will not be impaired. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and equitable relief,
including an order declaring that the defendants be required to
retire patronage capital "according to a regular, reasonable
revolving plan."

"Similarly to the litigation described above, although not
expected, if we were ordered by the Court to make distributions of
our patronage capital, our first mortgage indenture would require
us to raise our rates to a level where we could comply with
current patronage capital distribution restrictions, and the rate
increases required to meet the Plaintiff's demands could be
significant for a period of years. The plaintiffs seek to certify
three plaintiffs' classes but do not seek to certify a defendants'
class.

"In May 2015, the Superior Court judge appointed a special master
to oversee all pre-trial issues relating to these cases, including
motions to dismiss that we and the other defendants filed in
connection with each lawsuit. In September, the special master
issued proposed orders to the judge to grant our and the other
defendants' motions to dismiss both patronage capital lawsuits on
all counts.

"On May 2, 2016, the Superior Court judge adopted the special
master's proposed orders and granted our and the other defendants'
motions to dismiss both of these lawsuits on all counts. The
Court's decision remains subject to appeal.

"We intend to defend vigorously against all claims in the above-
described litigation."

Oglethorpe Power Corporation is a Georgia electric membership
corporation (an EMC) incorporated in 1974 and headquartered in
metropolitan Atlanta.  IOt is owned by its 38 retail electric
distribution cooperative members.


P.C. RICHARD & SON: "Matijakovich" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Walls granted the defendant's motion to dismiss
the case captioned DAVID MATIJAKOVICH, Plaintiff, v. P.C. RICHARD
& SON, Defendant, Civ. No. 2:16-1506 (WHW) (CLW) (D.N.J.).

On May 6, 2013, David Matijakovich purchased a new Maytag washing
machine from P.C. Richard & Son for use in his home.  He entered
into a contract with P.C. Richard & Son and paid $575 for the
appliance.  P.C. Richard & Son then delivered the appliance to
Matijakovich's property and installed it.  Matijakovich asserted
that the contract omitted a provision that is mandatory under New
Jersey law.  Specifically, language disclosing a seller's
obligations in case of the delayed delivery of furniture, as
required by the New Jersey Household Furniture and Furnishings
Regulations (HFR), was not present in the parties' contract.
Matijakovich did not assert that the delivery of the machine was
delayed but alleged that this omission violated New Jersey's
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

Judge Walls found that while Matijakovich's claim is entirely
based on an alleged omission of required contractual language, the
complaint made no allegation that any offending provision was
included in the contract, nor did it allege that required
information was disclosed in an inappropriate manner.  Judge Walls
thus held that Matijakovich's TCCWNA claim does not state a claim
for relief that is plausible on its face, and P.C. Richard & Son's
motion to dismiss that claim was granted.  The judge also granted
the defendant's motion to dismiss Matijakovich's redundant claim
for a declaratory judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Walls' June 21, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/cgEZl0 from Leagle.com.

DAVID MATIJAKOVICH, Plaintiff, represented by LEWIS G. ADLER --
lewisadler@verizon.net -- LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER.

P.C. RICHARD & SON, Defendant, represented by LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI
-- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP,
MICHAEL ANDREW INNES -- minnes@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE &
WARREN LLP & WILLIAM S. GYVES -- wgyves@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY
DRYE & WARREN LLP.


PFIZER INC: Updates on Effexor XR Antitrust Cases
-------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended April 3, 2016, that "beginning in May 2011, actions,
including purported class actions, were filed in various federal
courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of
Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which
is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in
each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of
all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly
purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the
purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the
defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the
actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the
U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws
and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection
and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth
fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for
Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for
Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement
with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each
of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the
individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the
purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor
XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since
June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  In October
2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-
payer plaintiffs' remaining claims."


PFIZER INC: Ontario Suit Over Chantix/Champix Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended April 3, 2016, that beginning in December 2008, purported
class actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec
(District of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta,
Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British
Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and
third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested
Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each
of these actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability
law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix,
and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief,
including punitive damages. In June 2012, the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class
action, defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all
persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from
April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who experienced at least one of
a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all
persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix
pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their
relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers
who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant
to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that
the action against Pfizer should be stayed until after the trial
of the issues that are common to the class members. The actions in
Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed in favor of
the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a national basis.


PINGTAN MARINE: Still Faces "Fila" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Pingtan Marine Enterprise 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 the Company
continues to defend the class action lawsuit by Paul Fila.

On January 14, 2015, a purported class action was filed by Paul
Fila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the Company and certain of its executive officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. As with any litigation proceeding, the Company cannot
predict with certainty the eventual outcome of any outstanding
legal actions. The Company expects to incur expenses in connection
with the defense of this lawsuit, and it may have to pay damages
or settlement costs in connection with any resolution thereof.


PJT PARTNERS: Faces "Barrett" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
PJT Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Plaintiff Gregory G.
Barrett filed on April 15, 2016, in the Southern District of New
York a putative class action for violation of the federal
securities laws against Defendants PJT Partners Inc. and Andrew W.
W. Caspersen.

The action, styled Gregory G. Barrett v. PJT Partners Inc. and
Andrew W. W. Caspersen, No. 1:16-cv-02841-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), was
assigned to Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Generally, the complaint
alleges that PJT Partners Inc. made misstatements about its
business, operational and compliance policies and its compliance
and fraud-prevention controls. These alleged misstatements
allegedly caused members of the putative class, investors who
purchased PJT Partners common stock during the class period,
November 12, 2015 to March 28, 2016, to pay an inflated price for
PJT Partners common stock. The complaint alleges claims under
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against PJT
Partners Inc. and Caspersen, and under 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against Caspersen.

"We believe that this shareholder action is without merit and will
defend it vigorously," the Company said.


PRIME ACCEPTANCE: Faces "Barrera" Suit in D. Ariz.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Acceptance
Corporation. The case is titled Troy Barrera, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Prime
Acceptance Corporation, a Utah corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-08123-JJT (D. Ariz., June 13, 2016). The Assigned
Judge is Hon. John J Tuchi.

Prime Acceptance provides open-end revolving and closed-end retail
financing services for consumers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott B Seymann, Esq.
          Steven Jay German, Esq.
          ADELMAN GERMAN PLC
          8245 N 85th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Telephone: (480) 607 9166
          Facsimile: (480) 607 9031
          E-mail: scott@adelmangerman.com
                  steve@adelmangerman.com

               - and -

          Steven L Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO LLC
          3900 E Mexico Ave., Ste. 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


PLATFORM SPECIALTY: To Defend Against "Tuttelman" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Platform Specialty Products 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
March and April 2016, a class action lawsuit entitled Dillard v.
Platform Specialty Products Corporation, et al. and a shareholder
derivative action entitled Tuttelman v. Platform Specialty
Products Corporation, et al., respectively, were filed against
Platform, certain of its former and current executive officers
and, in the case of the derivative action, its directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging
that the defendants made material false and misleading statements
relating to the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies in light of certain matters discovered and reported by
the Company itself in connection with a Company internal
investigation into certain past business practices of the
Company's Arysta West Africa business. Both actions are seeking
unspecified damages. The Company believes these proceedings are
without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

Platform Specialty Products Corporation is a global, diversified
producer of high-technology specialty chemical products and
provider of technical services. The Company's business involves
the formulation of a broad range of solutions-oriented specialty
chemicals which are sold into multiple industries, including
agricultural, animal health, electronics, graphic arts, plating,
and offshore oil and gas production and drilling.


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Settlement Reached in "Coleman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Noble Voice, LLC, are parties to
litigation captioned as Coleman v. Noble Voice, LLC, et al., Case
No. 15-CV-6791 (N.D. Ill.), a putative class action, pursuant to
which a consumer alleged that Noble Voice violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by contacting him in relation to
a job for which he applied online.  The action complaint seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  The lawsuit was filed
in August 2015 and the Company timely filed its answer.  During
the First Quarter of 2016 the parties agreed in principle to a
mutual settlement agreement and release, for a nominal amount that
is subject to a confidentiality agreement and Court approval.


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Settlement Reached in "Vazquez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
party to litigation captioned as Norma Vazquez v. Professional
Diversity Network, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-13-WCO (N.D.Ga.), a
putative class action, pursuant to which a consumer alleged that
the Company violated the TCPA by sending her a text message
inviting her to attend a career fair.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  The lawsuit was filed
in January 2016 and the Company has timely filed its Answer.
During the First Quarter of 2016 the parties agreed in principle
to a mutual settlement agreement and release, for a nominal amount
that is subject to a confidentiality agreement and Court approval.


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Settlement Reached in "Ramnath" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
and its wholly-owned subsidiary, NAPW, Inc., are parties to
litigation captioned Gauri Ramnath, et al. v. Professional
Diversity Network, Inc., et al., No. BC604153 (Los Angeles
Superior Ct.), a putative class action alleging violations of
various California Labor Code (wage & hour) sections.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The complaint was filed in
December 2015 and the Company has answered.  On April 28, 2016 the
parties entered into a mutual settlement agreement and release, on
behalf of all putative class participants, in the amount of
$500,000. Such amount is recorded in accrued expenses in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31,
2016. The parties' agreement and its amount are subject to Court
and state agency approval, which the parties expect to occur
during the second and third Quarters of 2016.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 26 Final Settlement Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, 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 in
the Securities Litigation has set a hearing on September 26, 2016
to determine whether the proposed settlement of the case is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the class; whether the class should be
certified and the plan of allocation of the Settlement Funds
approved; whether to grant Lead Plaintiff's request for expenses
and Lead Plaintiff's counsel's request for fees and expenses; and
whether to enter judgment dismissing the Securities Litigation as
provided in the Stipulation of Settlement.

On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the
plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee
Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees,
Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants")
alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeking monetary damages. Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of
the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege
that the Defendants are liable for making false statements and
failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about the Company,
in connection with the Company's application to the FDA for
Breakthrough Therapy Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma
drug, PV-10, in the Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent
denial of the Company's application for BTD.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint
motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order
dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the
Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively
and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred
the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee (the "Court") entered an order
appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as
counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered
an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated
amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order.

On April 6, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") in the
Securities Litigation, alleging that Provectus and the other
individual defendants made knowingly false representations about
the likelihood that PV-10 would be approved as a candidate for
BTD, and that such representations caused injury to Lead Plaintiff
and other shareholders. The Consolidated Complaint also added Eric
Wachter as a named defendant.

On June 5, 2015, Provectus filed its Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"). On July 20,
2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss (the "Response"). Pursuant to order of the
Court, Provectus replied to the Response on September 18, 2015.

On October 1, 2015, the Court entered an order staying a ruling on
the Motion to Dismiss pending a mediation to resolve the
Securities Litigation in its entirety. A mediation occurred on
October 28, 2015. On January 28, 2016, a settlement terms sheet
(the "Terms Sheet") was executed by counsel for the Company and
counsel for the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated Securities
Litigation.

Pursuant to the Terms Sheet, the parties agree, contingent upon
the approval of the court in the consolidated Securities
Litigation, that the cases will be settled as a class action on
the basis of a class period of December 17, 2013 through May 22,
2014. The Company and its insurance carrier agreed to pay the
total amount of $3.5 million (the "Settlement Funds") into an
interest bearing escrow account upon preliminary approval by the
court in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. The Company has
determined that it is probable that the Company will pay $1.85
million of the total, which has been accrued at December 31, 2015
and was paid in March 2016. The insurance carrier will pay $1.65
million of the total directly to the plaintiff's trust escrow
account and it will not pass through the Company. Notice will be
provided to shareholder members of the class. Shareholder members
of the class will have both the opportunity to file claims to the
Settlement Funds and to object to the settlement. If the court
enters final approval of the settlement, the Securities Litigation
will be dismissed with full prejudice, the Defendants will be
released from any and all claims in the Securities Litigation and
the Securities Litigation will be fully concluded. If the court
does not give final approval of the settlement, the Settlement
Funds, less any claims administration expenses, will be returned
to the Company and its insurance carrier.

A Stipulation of Settlement encompassing the details of the
settlement and procedures for preliminary and final court approval
was filed on March 8, 2016. The Stipulation of Settlement
incorporates the provisions of the Terms Sheet and includes the
procedures for providing notice to stockholders who bought or sold
stock of the Company during the class period. The Stipulation of
Settlement further provides for (1) the methodology of
administering and calculating claims, final awards to
stockholders, and supervision and distribution of the Settlement
Funds and (2) the procedure for preliminary and final approval of
the settlement of the Securities Litigation.

On April 7, 2016, the court in the Securities Litigation held a
hearing on preliminary approval of the settlement, entered an
order preliminarily approving the settlement, ordered that the
class be notified of the settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement, and set a hearing on September 26, 2016
to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the class; whether the class should be certified
and the plan of allocation of the Settlement Funds approved;
whether to grant Lead Plaintiff's request for expenses and Lead
Plaintiff's counsel's request for fees and expenses; and whether
to enter judgment dismissing the Securities Litigation as provided
in the Stipulation of Settlement. If the settlement is not
approved and consummated, the Company intends to defend vigorously
against all claims in the Consolidated Complaint.


RESONANT INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion
to dismiss a securities litigation remains pending.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry
Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were
consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (VBKx), and
the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs."

"On September 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal securities
laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter
of our May 29, 2014 IPO. The plaintiffs purported to be acting on
behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our
common stock between May 28, 2014 and April 2, 2015, or the Class
Period, as well as a subclass of persons or entities who purchased
or acquired our shares in (or traceable to) our IPO. The
plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our
business, operations, prospects and performance, our common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought in the action.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
November 30, 2015. On February 8, 2016, the court granted our
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but granted the
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. On February
23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended
complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal securities
laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter
of our May 29, 2014 IPO.

"On March 22, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
second amended complaint. It is not known when the court will rule
on the motion."


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Warren Police Suit Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Revance 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 the Company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit by City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System.

The Company said, "On May 1, 2015, a securities class action
complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al., CIV 533635, was filed
on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in
the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California against us and
certain of our directors and executive officers at the time of our
June 2014 follow-on public offering, and the investment banking
firms that acted as the underwriters in such follow-on public
offering."

"In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the then-present status of our RT001 topical
clinical program and made false and misleading statements
regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of RT001
topical, for the treatment of crow's feet at the time of our
follow-on public offering. The complaint has been brought as a
purported class action on behalf of those who purchased our common
stock in such follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

"On October 5, 2015, we made a motion for transfer of the action
to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on the basis
that venue was improper in San Mateo County. Plaintiff's counsel
did not oppose the transfer motion, and the action was received by
Santa Clara Superior Court on November 6, 2015 and assigned the
following case number, 15-CV-287794. On November 23, 2015, the
Court issued an Order deeming the case complex and staying all
discovery and motions pending further order. Before proceeding
with further Court action, including the filing of our motions to
dismiss under California rules, we agreed with Plaintiff to
conduct a mediation.

"We believe that the class action is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action. Nevertheless, this litigation, as
any other litigation, is subject to uncertainty and there can be
no assurance that this litigation will not have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations, financial position
or cash flows."


RH ALLERGY: Faces "Jacobson" Suit in C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed against RH Allergy Acquisition
II, LLC. The case is captioned Andrew Jacobson, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RH
Allergy Acquisition II, LLC, doing business as: National Allergy
Supply, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01240 (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2016).

RH Allergy develops medicinal products for allergy prevention and
environmental effect control. The company is based in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ROADRUNNER TRANS: Wages Suits Pending in Calif. and Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, 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 a defendant in five purported class-action lawsuits in
California alleging violations of various California labor laws
and one purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois alleging
violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

"The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek to recover
unspecified monetary damages and other items," the Company said.
In addition, the California Division of Labor Standards and
Enforcement has brought administrative actions against us on
behalf of seven individuals alleging that we violated California
labor laws. Given the early stage of all of the proceedings . . .,
we are not able to assess with certainty the outcome of these
proceedings or the amount or range of potential damages or future
payments associated with these proceedings at this time. We
believe we have meritorious defenses to these actions and intend
to defend these proceedings vigorously. However, any legal
proceeding is subject to inherent uncertainties, and we cannot
assure that the expenses associated with defending these actions
or their resolution will not have a material adverse effect on our
business, operating results, or financial condition."


ROCKET FUEL: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Fuel Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against class action lawsuit.

On September 3, 2014 and September 10, 2014, respectively, two
purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors at the time. The actions are Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket Fuel Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters in the initial
public offering on September 19, 2013 (the "IPO") and the
secondary offering on February 5, 2014 (the "Secondary Offering")
were also named as defendants. These actions were consolidated and
a consolidated complaint, In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation,
was filed on February 27, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleged
that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the
ability of the Company's technology to detect and eliminate
fraudulent web traffic, and about Rocket Fuel's future prospects.
The consolidated complaint also alleged that the Company's
registration statements and prospectuses for the IPO and the
Secondary Offering contained false and misleading statements on
these topics. The consolidated complaint purported to assert
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5
(the "Exchange Act" claims), and for violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"
claims), on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common
stock between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as
well as those who purchased stock in the IPO, and a claim for
violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act in connection
with the Secondary Offering. The consolidated complaint sought
monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on
December 23, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the
Securities Act claims and all but one of the statements on which
the Exchange Act claims were based. The court also dismissed all
claims against the outside directors and the underwriters of the
Company's public offerings.


SANKEI SHIMBUN: Dismissal of "You" Defamation Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HE NAM YOU and KYUNG SOON KIM, for
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HIROHITO; NOBUSKE KISHI; NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI
KAISHA; NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; HITACHI,
LTD.; NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL CORPORATION; MITSUI GROUP;
OKAMOTO INDUSTRIES, INC.; and SANKEI SHIMBUN CO., LTD.,
Defendants, No. C 15-03257 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup
affirmed the order granting Sankei's motion to dismiss.  The judge
also dismissed all remaining claims for lack of prosecution.

A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's June 21, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/RaXQ0U from Leagle.com.

The putative class action was filed for crimes against humanity
during the Second World War and for defamation.  The plaintiffs,
He Nam You and Kyung Soon Kim, are residents and citizens of the
Republic of Korea.  They were abducted by the Japanese government
during the Second World War, forced into servitude, and exploited
as sex slaves for the benefit of Japanese soldiers at "comfort
stations" in Japan.  The Japanese military forced over 200,000
Korean women to serve as sex slaves during the Second World War,
few of whom survive today.  The plaintiffs sought to represent a
class of the surviving comfort women.

The defendant, Sankei Shimbun, Co., Ltd., is a Japanese
corporation with its principal place of business in Tokyo and
major offices in Osaka.  Sankei Shimbun publishes a daily
newspaper in Japanese, which it distributes in Japan.  The
plaintiffs claimed that in November 2014, Sankei Shimbun published
an article with allegedly defamatory statements about comfort
women, and sought to pursue claims arising therefrom in federal
district court in San Francisco.

A prior order granted Sankei Shimbun's motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

Hee Nam You, Kyung Soon Kim, Plaintiffs, represented by Hume
Joseph Jung -- jjung@jungandassociates.com -- Joseph Jung &
Associates & Hyungjin Kim.

United States, Interested Party, represented by Kenneth Elliot
Sealls, U.S. Dept. of Justice.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Defends Morning Song Bird Food Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that in connection with
the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of a
voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been named as a
defendant in four putative class actions filed on and after June
27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California as In re
Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-
JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law
claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food
products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending
government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of
all persons and entities in the United States who purchased
certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of
millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential, and restitution), punitive and treble damages;
injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to
vigorously defend the consolidated action. At this point in the
proceedings, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a
probable loss, if any, associated with the action and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's
condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to the
action. There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a
result of an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense
costs, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Scotts Miracle-Gro is a manufacturer and marketer of consumer
branded products for lawn and garden care in North America and
Europe.


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC LITIGATION.
CONSOLIDATED ACTION, Case No. 16-cv-00523-RMW (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Ronald M. Whyte denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' Motion
for Appointment as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel filed on May 13,
2016.

The plaintiffs brought a putative consumer class action against
defendant Seagate Technology LLC, alleging that Seagate's
misrepresentations and failure to disclose the latent defects of
certain internal and external hard disk drives constitute breach
of consumer protection, unfair competition, and false advertising
laws; breach of express and implied warranties; and unjust
enrichment.

The plaintiffs moved for the appointment of their attorneys Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Axler Goldrich LLC as interim co-lead
counsel for the putative class.

Judge White, however, found that appointment is unnecessary at
this time.

A full-text copy of Judge Whyte's June 21, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/KuK3At from Leagle.com.

Christopher A. Nelson, Adam Ginsberg, Dudley Lane Dortch IV,
Dennis Crawford, David Schechner, Plaintiff, represented by Marc
Adam Goldich, Axler Goldich LLC, Bryan L. Clobes --
bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Nyran Rose Rasche --
nrasche@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel
LLP, pro hac vice, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice
& Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Seagate Technology LLC, Defendant, represented by Anna S. McLean
-- amclean@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, David Edward Snyder -- dsnyder@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Lien Hoang Payne -
lpayne@sheppardmullin.com --  Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP & Neil A. Friedman Popovic -- npopovic@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.


SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: MSLO Stockholder Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Sequential Brands 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 Company
continues to defend the MSLO Stockholder Complaint.

In connection with the Mergers, the following 13 putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have were been filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) David Shaev Profit
Sharing Plan f/b/o David Shaev v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
Inc. et. al. filed on June 25, 2015; (2) Malka Raul v. Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on June 26, 2015; (3)
Daniel Lisman v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al.filed
on June 29, 2015; (4) Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on July 2, 2015; (5) Harold
Litwin v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on
July 5, 2015; (6) Richard Schiffrin v. Martha Stewart filed on
July 7, 2015; (7) Cedric Terrell v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on July 8, 2015; (8) Dorothy Moore v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on July 8,
2015; (9) Paul Dranove v. Pierre De Villemejane. et. al. filed on
July 8, 2015; (10) Phuc Nguyen v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
Inc. et. al. filed on July 10, 2015; (11) Kenneth Steiner v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on July 16,
2015; (12) Karen Gordon v. Martha Stewart et. al. filed on July
27, 2015; and (13) Anne Seader v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia,
Inc. et. al. filed on July 28, 2015. All of the 13 class action
lawsuits name the Old Sequential, MSLO, the MSLO board of
directors, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc., Singer Merger Sub, Inc. and
New Sequential as defendants and allege that (a) members of the
MSLO board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and (b)
Old Sequential, MSLO, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc., Singer Merger Sub
Inc. and New Sequential aided and abetted such alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the MSLO board of directors. On August 18,
2015, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order consolidating
these actions for all purposes under the caption In re Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et. al. to be the operative
complaint in the consolidated action.

On January 12, 2016, after the consummation of the Mergers, the
plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, naming Ms. Martha Stewart, the New Sequential, Old
Sequential, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. and Singer Merger Sub, Inc.
and alleging that (a) Ms. Stewart breached her fiduciary duties to
MSLO's stockholders and (b) New Sequential, Old Sequential,
Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. and Singer Merger Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted Ms. Stewart's breach of her fiduciary duties. The
plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly sustained
by the plaintiffs, restitution and disgorgement by Ms. Stewart,
the recovery of plaintiff's attorney's fees and other relief.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims made
by the plaintiffs, and we are vigorously defending such claims.
Litigation costs in this matter may be significant. The Company
does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this matter will
have a material effect on the Company's unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements," the Company said.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Settlement Funds to Be Distributed in June 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that settlement funds in the
IBO Litigation are scheduled to be distributed to class members in
June 2016.

The Company said, "In January 2013, plaintiffs comprised of IBOs
filed a putative class action against our distribution subsidiary,
S-L Distribution Company, Inc., in the Suffolk Superior Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The lawsuit was transferred to
the United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The lawsuit seeks statewide class certification on behalf of a
class comprised of IBOs in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs allege
that they were misclassified as independent contractors and should
be considered employees. The plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement
of their out-of-pocket business expenses."

"We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have
been asserted against us. On December 22, 2015, the parties to
this litigation reached a tentative settlement on a class wide
basis. We do not admit any fault or liability in this matter;
however, in an effort to resolve these claims, we have agreed to
pay $2.9 million to fully resolve the litigation. This amount has
been accrued as reflected in other payables and accrued
liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The settlement has
been approved by the court and settlement funds are scheduled to
be distributed to class members in June 2016."


SNYDER'S-LANCE: No Schedule Yet on Motions to Dismiss Merger Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that a schedule has not yet
been set for briefing of anticipated motions to dismiss the
complaints in the merger-related litigation.

The Company on October 27, 2015, entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement") with
Diamond Foods, Inc. ("Diamond"). Diamond is a leading snack food
company with five brands including Kettle Brand(R) potato chips,
KETTLE(R) Chips, Pop Secret(R) popcorn, Emerald(R) snack nuts, and
Diamond of California(R) culinary nuts. Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, the Company agreed to acquire all of the issued and
outstanding shares of common stock of Diamond in a cash and stock
transaction, including the Company's repayment of $651.0 million
of Diamond's indebtedness, accrued interest and related fees,
subject to the approval of the Company's stockholders of the
issuance of the Company's shares and the approval of the
stockholders of Diamond of the adoption of the Merger Agreement.

The Company said, "On November 10, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of Diamond stockholders in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint names as
defendants Diamond, the members of Diamond's board of directors,
Snyder's-Lance, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II. The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the members of
Diamond's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Diamond's stockholders in connection with negotiating, entering
into and approving the merger agreement with Snyder's-Lance, Inc.
The complaint additionally alleges that Diamond, Snyder's-Lance,
Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaint sought injunctive relief,
including the enjoinment of the merger, certain other declaratory
and equitable relief, damages, costs and fees. An amended
complaint was filed on December 21, 2015. The amended complaint
adds further allegations related to the merger process and
disclosures contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4
filed by Snyder's-Lance on November 25, 2015.

On January 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
proceedings requesting a preliminary injunction and expedited
discovery, which the Court denied on February 3, 2016. On January
19, 2016, another action was filed in Delaware similar to the
above matter. A schedule has not yet been set for briefing of
anticipated motions to dismiss the complaints. If we determine
that a loss is possible and a range of the loss can be reasonably
estimated, we will disclose the range of the possible loss."


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Case Management Conference on Aug. 1
----------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that a a further case
management conference is scheduled for August 1, 2016, in the
California Labor Code Litigation.

Former employee Patricia Sparks filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Diamond on November 25, 2015 in San Francisco
Superior Court alleging Diamond's violation of the California
Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the start date
of the pay period and by failing to include on wage statements the
name and address of legal entity that is the employer.  Plaintiff
amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to add a claim for
penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act based
on the same underlying violations.  Diamond Foods timely answered
the First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2016.

The parties attended the initial case management conference on May
2, 2016 and a further case management conference is scheduled for
August 1, 2016.  No other dates are currently on calendar.

The Company said, "Following our acquisition of Diamond,
adjudication or resolution of Patricia Sparks' claims could have a
material impact on Snyder's-Lance's business or financial
condition. We accrued $8.3 million associated with this
outstanding claim in the Diamond opening balance sheet as that
represents our best estimate of the probable liability at that
time. This accrual remains outstanding and is included in other
payables and accrued liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets as of April 2, 2016. We will adjust this accrual as
we obtain additional information related to this estimate."


STAAR SURGICAL: Must Defend Against "Todd" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that a court has denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Todd v. STAAR.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the
federal court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff
claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted
material information from our investors between February 27, 2013
and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at STAAR's
Monrovia manufacturing facility. On October 20, 2014, plaintiff
amended its complaint, dismissed two Company officers, added one
other officer, reduced the alleged Class Period to November 1,
2013 through June 30, 2014, and demanded compensatory damages and
fees.

On September 21, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On April 12, 2016, the court denied the motion
to dismiss.

Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined
with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the
Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself against this lawsuit. The Company has not recorded
any loss or accrual in the accompanying condensed consolidated
financial statements for this matter as the likelihood and amount
of loss, if any, has not been determined and is not currently
estimable.

STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures and sells
implantable lenses for the eye and companion delivery systems used
to deliver the lenses into the eye.


STRATUS FRANCHISING: Appeal in Franchise Fraud Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court's
judgment in favor of Stratus Franchising L.L.C. in the case
captioned Nidia Martinez, et al., on Behalf of Herself and Others
Similarly Situated Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Stratus Franchising,
LLC, et al., Appellees-Defendants, No. 49A02-1509-PL-1317 (Ind.
Ct. App.).

Between 2009 and 2012, plaintiffs Nidia Martinez, Maria Manriquez,
Elsa de la Cruz, Eni Cruz Rodriguez, Victor Garcia, Laura Andolon,
Ronny Funes, Theresa Escobedo, Lorenzo Rodriguez, Faustina
Negrete, Yolanda Alvarez, and Jose Leon performed commercial
cleaning services as "franchisees" of Shamrock Building Services,
Inc. d/b/a Stratus Building Solutions of Indianapolis
("Shamrock"), an Indiana commercial cleaning company operating as
a regional "master franchise" of Missouri-based Stratus
Franchising, L.L.C. ("Stratus").  In June 2012, the plaintiffs
brought a class action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, alleging, among various claims against several
parties, that Stratus aided and abetted franchise fraud and
committed civil deception. Following a three-day bench trial, the
trial court entered judgment in favor of Stratus.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Indiana held that the trial
court's finding that Stratus did not aid and abet Shamrock in the
commission of franchise fraud was not clearly erroneous.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 21, 2016 memorandum
decision is available at https://is.gd/QxLuUp from Leagle.com.

Kathrine D. Jack, Paul B. Overhauser, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC,
Greenfield, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS.

John F. McCauley -- jmccauley@bgdlegal.com -- Bingham Greenebaum
Doll LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE STRATUS
FRANCHISING, LLC.


SUNOPTA INC: Class Suit Parties Engaged in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------
Sunopta Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the parties in an
employment class action lawsuit are currently engaged in pre-class
certification discovery.

On April 19, 2013, a class-action complaint, in the case titled De
Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, was filed
against Sunrise Growers, Inc. (then named Frozsun, Inc.) in
California Superior Court, Santa Barbara County seeking damages,
equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees for alleged wage
and hour violations. This case includes claims for failure to pay
all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, meal and rest
period violations, waiting-time penalties, improper wage
statements and unfair business practices. The putative class
includes approximately 4,000 to 4,500 non-exempt hourly employees
from Sunrise's production facilities in Santa Maria and Oxnard,
California. The parties are currently engaged in pre-class
certification discovery. The Company is unable to estimate any
potential liabilities relating to this proceeding, and any such
liabilities could be material.

SunOpta Inc. operates businesses focused on a healthy products
portfolio that promotes sustainable well-being.


SUNSHINE ROOFING: "Arguello" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Roger Arguello, Miami, FL; Alfonso
Morales, Miami, FL; Luis Vazquez, Miami, FL; and John Morales
Miami, FL, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. Sunshine Roofing, 7500 NW 69 Ave. R-2 Medley, FL
33166, and Antonio, Rodriguez, 20230 NW 7 Street, Pembroke Pines,
FL 33029, the Defendants, Case No. 16-11423 CA 01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-22139-MGC to the
proceeding.

Sunshine Roofing provides roof installation and repair in St.
Augustine, FL and surrounding areas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason David Katz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JASON D. KATZ
          3325 S. University Drive, Suite 210
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 494 5732
          Facsimile: (954) 494 5732
          E-mail: jason@jkatzlaw.com


SWISHER HYGIENE: Status Hearing Held in "Berger" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court scheduled a
status hearing for May 13, 2016, in the case by Paul Berger.

On September 8, 2015, a lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class
action (Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., et al., Case No. 2015
CH 13325 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co.)) was filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division by
Paul Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, against Swisher Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher
Hygiene Inc.'s board of directors, individually, and Ecolab in
connection with the Sale Transaction. The plaintiff has alleged
that (i) faced with an ongoing investigation by the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the USAO, the individual defendants
embarked upon a self-interested scheme to sell off Swisher
International, Inc.'s assets and to liquidate Swisher Hygiene
Inc., (ii) the individual defendants, through an alleged
insufficient process, caused Swisher Hygiene Inc. to agree to sell
substantially all of its assets for insufficient consideration,
(iii) each member of Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s. Board of Directors is
interested in the Sale Transaction and the plan of dissolution,
and (iv) the proxy statement was materially misleading and/or
incomplete. The causes of action set forth in the complaint are
(i) a claim for breaches of the fiduciary duties of good faith,
loyalty, fair dealing and due care, (ii) a claim for failure to
disclose, and (iii) a claim against Ecolab for aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the
consummation of the Sale Transaction unless and until defendants
provide all material facts in the proxy statement, and the
plaintiff also seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages as
allowed by law for the plaintiff. This summary is qualified by
reference to the full text of the complaint as filed with the
Court.

On October 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Illinois action given that a substantially similar action, Raul,
was pending in North Carolina.  On December 15, 2015, the parties
agreed to hold defendants' motion to dismiss in abeyance until the
court in the Raul action ruled on the pending motions to dismiss
in that case.  A status hearing was held on February 26, 2016 and
the Court entered an order to continue to hold in abeyance the
motion to dismiss and scheduled a status hearing for May 13, 2016.
The Company believes the claims alleged by the plaintiff are
without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against them.


SWISHER HYGIENE: "Raul" Amended Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the amended complaint
by Malka Raul has been dismissed with prejudice as to the
plaintiff.

On September 11, 2015, a derivative and putative class action
(Malka Raul v. Swisher Hygiene Inc. et al., Case No. 15-CVS-16703
(Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina)) was filed in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina by Malka Raul.  The action was brought
derivatively on behalf of Swisher Hygiene Inc., and individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Swisher
Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher Hygiene Inc's board of
directors, individually, and Ecolab in connection with the Sale
Transaction. The plaintiff has alleged that (i) the sale of
Swisher International, Inc. to Ecolab contemplated by the purchase
agreement is unfair and inequitable to the Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s
stockholders and constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of
the directors in the sale of Swisher International, Inc. (ii)
defendants have exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by
agreeing to lock up the Sale Transaction with deal protection
devices that preclude other bidders from making a successful
competing offer for Swisher International, Inc. and preclude
stockholders from voting against the Sale Transaction, (iii) the
Sale Transaction will divest the Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s
stockholders of their ownership interest in Swisher International,
Inc. for inadequate consideration; (iv) each of the defendants
violated and continues to violate applicable law by directly
breaching and/or aiding and abetting the defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith
and fair dealings, (v) the Sale Transaction is the product of a
flawed process that was designed to sell Swisher International,
Inc. to Ecolab on terms detrimental to plaintiff and the other
Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s stockholders, (vi) the proxy statement
fails to provide Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s stockholders with material
information and/or provides them with materially misleading
information and (vii) the proxy statement fails to provide Swisher
Hygiene Inc.'s stockholders with all material information
concerning the financial analysis of Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC.
The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i) a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants,
(ii) a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty
against Ecolab, (iii) a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary
duties against the individual defendants, and (iv) a derivative
claim for unjust enrichment against the individual defendants. The
plaintiff primarily sought to (i) enjoin defendants from
consummating the Sale Transaction unless and until the individual
defendants adopt and implement a fair procedure or process to sell
Swisher International, Inc., (ii) direct the individual defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which
is in the best interests of Swisher Hygiene Inc. and its
stockholders and (iii) rescind, to the extent already implemented,
the purchase agreement or any of the terms thereof. The plaintiff
also seeks costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts fees, and such other equitable and/or
injunctive relief as the Court may deem just and proper. This
summary is qualified by reference to the full text of the
complaint as filed with the Court.

On November 5, 2015, defendants in the Raul case filed motions to
dismiss, and on November 23, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to
dismiss as moot and a motion for an award of attorney's fees.
Oral arguments of the plaintiff's and defendants' motions occurred
on January 12, 2016.  In supplemental briefing plaintiff advised
the Court that it intended to withdraw its motion to dismiss and
amend its complaint to include "newly discovered information".  On
January 28, 2016, the Court granted Ecolab's motion to dismiss and
plaintiff's permission to file an amended complaint, preserved
defendants' motions to dismiss for future consideration and
deferred consideration of plaintiff's motion for award of
attorneys' fees.

On February 11, 2016, the plaintiff in the Raul case filed her
amended complaint bringing the action derivatively on behalf of
Swisher Hygiene Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly, against the members of Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s board of
directors and Swisher Hygiene Inc. The plaintiff alleged a claim
for declaratory relief against the individual defendants, a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants,
and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, and waste relating to the Sale
Transaction and the Plan of Dissolution. On February 24, 2016,
following a review of the amended complaint, defense counsel
advised plaintiff's counsel of certain factual and legal errors
contained in the amended complaint, and further advised of
defendants' intention to seek reimbursement for expenses,
including attorneys' fees, if the amended complaint was not
withdrawn. On February 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal and, on March 3, 2016, the amended complaint
was dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff, with each side
bearing its own costs and expenses.


TARGET CORPORATION: "Hara" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Hara, Andrea Hogan, and
Larry Rollinger, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, Kraft
Heinz Foods Company, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 0:16-cv-00686, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06171 to the
proceeding.

Target Corporation is the second-largest discount retailer in the
United States, behind Walmart. Kraft Heinz produces and markets
food products in the United States and internationally. It offers
ketchups, sauces, condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces
under Heinz, Lea & Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and
Pudliszki brand names. Wal-Mart is an American multinational
retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets.

The "Hara" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brant D. Penney
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287 2100
          E-mail: b.penney@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
          Reinhardt & Anderson
          East 100 First Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 227 9990

Target Corporation is represented by:

          Brian A Wood, Esq.
          LIND JENSEN SULLIVAN & PETERSON, PA
          901 Marquette Ave. S., Ste. 1300
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 3637
          Facsimile: (612) 333 1030
          E-mail: brian.wood@lindjensen.com

Kraft Heinz Foods Company is represented by:

          David P Graham, Esq.
          Kristina Kaluza, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC
          4000 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 486 1521
          Facsimile: (855) 236 1209
          E-mail: dgraham@dykema.com
                  kkaluza@dykema.com

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is represented by:

          Angela Beranek Brandt, Esq.
          Margaret Jennings Meier, Esq.
          Larson King, LLP
          30 E 7th St Ste 2800
          St Paul, MN 55101-4922
          Telephone: (651) 312 6544
          Facsimile: (651) 312 6618
          E-mail: abrandt@larsonking.com
                  mmeier@larsonking.com


TARGET CORPORATION: "Saitta" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ronald Saitta, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Target
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10586, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06170 to the proceeding.

Target Corporation is the second-largest discount retailer in the
United States, behind Walmart.

The "Saitta" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742 9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742 9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Preston W. Leonard, Esq.,
          LEONARD LAW OFFICE, PC
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 329 1295
          E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward F. Whitesell , Jr., Esq.
          BERLUTI MCLAUGHLIN & KUTCHIN, LLP
          44 School Street, 9th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 557 3030
          E-mail: ewhitesell@bmklegal.com


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Class Actions in U.S. and Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tower Semiconductor Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in January 2016, a
short-selling focused firm issued a short sell thesis report which
the Company believes contains false and misleading information
about the Company's strategy, business model and financials.
Following this short sell thesis report, shareholder class actions
were filed in the US and Israel against the Company, certain
officers, its directors and/or its external auditor. This short
sell thesis analyst acknowledged at the time of the report that he
shall be assumed to be in a short position in Tower's shares. The
Company believes the alleged claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend the actions.

Tower is a pure-play independent specialty foundry dedicated to
the manufacture of semiconductors. Typically, pure-play foundries
do not offer products of their own, but focus on producing
integrated circuits, or ICs, based on the design specifications of
their customers.


UNITED STATES: Gov't. Faces "Horvath" Suit in Ct. of Fed. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the US government. The case is
captioned MICHAEL HORVATH, individually, and on behalf of the
classes of federal Secret Service agents similarly situated to
him, the Plaintiff, v. USA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00688-
LKG (Ct. of Federal Claims, June 13, 2016). The Assigned Judge is
Hon. Lydia Kay Griggsby.

USA, commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America,
is a federal republic composed of 50 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David James Vendler, Esq.
          MORRIS POLICH & PURDY, LLP (CA)
          1055 W. 7th Street, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 891 9100
          Facsimile: (213) 488 1178
          E-mail: dvendler@mpplaw.com


VIVINT SOLAR: Accord with Installation Technicians Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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 reached
in a class action lawsuit by two former installation technicians
remains subject to court approval.

In September 2014, two former installation technicians of the
Company, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, filed a
complaint for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
San Diego against the Company and unnamed John Doe defendants. The
complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among
other things, alleged improper classification of installer
technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and
electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure
to provide wages on termination. In December 2014, the original
plaintiffs and three additional plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint with essentially the same allegations.

On November 5, 2015, the parties agreed to preliminary terms of a
settlement of all claims related to allegations in the complaint
in return for the Company's payment of $1.7 million to be paid out
to the purported class members. The settlement agreement must be
approved by the Court, after notice to the purported class. As of
March 31, 2016, a $1.7 million reserve was recorded related to
this proceeding in the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal in "Hyatt" Case Pending
--------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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 in the
case, Hyatt v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF),
remains pending.

In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages.

In January 2015, the Court ordered these cases to be consolidated
into the earlier filed case, Hyatt v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al.,
14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in February 2015. On May 6, 2015, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint and on December 10, 2015, the
Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.

On January 5, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company is unable to estimate
a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an
adverse final decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in
this case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the
Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such
outcome becomes probable and estimable.


VIVINT SOLAR: Delaware Court Dismissed Acquisition Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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 Delaware Chancery
Court has entered the dismissal of a class action lawsuit related
to the proposed acquisition by SunEdison.

On July 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Chancery State of Delaware against the Company's
directors, SunEdison Inc. ("SunEdison"), and TerraForm Power
("TerraForm"), alleging that the proposed acquisition by SunEdison
is unfair to the Company's stockholders. On August 7, 2015, a
second putative class action lawsuit was filed in the same court
alleging similar claims, and including 313, Acquisition, LLC as a
named defendant. Both complaints seek injunctive relief and
unspecified damages.

On or about September 10, 2015, two purported class action
lawsuits were also filed in Utah's Fourth District State Court
(the "Utah Actions"), alleging similar claims to the complaints
previously filed in the Delaware Chancery Court.

On September 22, 2015, the Company, through counsel notified
plaintiff's counsel in the Utah Actions that pursuant to the
Company's Articles of Incorporation, any such derivative action
was subject to exclusive jurisdiction in the Delaware Chancery
Court, and accordingly, the Utah Actions should be dismissed.

After a December 2015 amendment to the proposed acquisition, a new
complaint was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on January 11,
2016. As a result of the termination of the SunEdison acquisition,
plaintiffs filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the complaint
in this action. On April 20, 2016, the Delaware court entered the
dismissal of this case.


VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal in Kern County Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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
from a court order dismissing their claims is pending.

On September 9, 2015, two of the Company's customers, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative
class action, Case No. BCV-15-100925(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
County), alleging violation of California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 and requesting relief pursuant to
Section 1689 of the California Civil Code. The complaint seeks:
(1) rescission of their power purchase agreements along with
restitution to the plaintiffs individually and (2) declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On October 16, 2015, the Company moved to compel arbitration of
the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the provisions set forth in the
power purchase agreements, which the Court granted and dismissed
the class claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the
Court's order.

It is not possible to estimate the amount or range of potential
loss, if any, at this time.


WAL-MART STORES: "Costoso" Suit Consolidated in MLD 2705
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette Costoso, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal Mart Stores Inc., doing business
as: Great Value, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01162, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-06174 to the proceeding.

Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets.

The "Costoso" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP LLC
          155 Second St., Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Eric Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360 7925
          E-mail: sellingerd@gtlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Ducorsky" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
---------------------------------------------------------
Alan Ducorsky and Becky Sikes, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-01571, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois -
(Chicago). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-05820 to the proceeding.

Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets.

The "Ducorsky" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re:
100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All
actions involve the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated
parmesan cheese product in the Eastern District of Missouri. They
request that the MDL encompass the actions in their initial motion
concerning Kraft and Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along
actions involving Target, SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-
Cheese Company. In its June 2, 2016 order, the MDL panel found
that common factual questions arise from plaintiffs' allegations
that defendants deceived consumers by marketing products
containing cellulose as "100%" grated parmesan cheese. Common
factual issues will include the underlying laboratory testing,
consumer perception of the labeling representation, the alleged
impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged role as a common supplier
for Wal-Mart and other stores selling house brand "100%" grated
parmesan cheese products. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary
Feinerman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-
05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          Facsimile: (845) 562 3492
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Eric Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360 7925
          E-mail: sellingerd@gtlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Moschetta" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Moschetta, Efrain Ruiz, Jenelle Craggette, Veronica Sutton
Jason Martin, Joseph Landara, Carl Nitz, Sheila Garland, Jeffrey
Dowdy, Camilla DeMario, Nena Simon, Larry Tucker, Renita Myers ,
Phyliss Lynn, Nevina Saitta, Robert Demario, Russell Levy, and
Britney Cooper, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., d/b/a Great
Value, the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-01377, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois -
(Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
05817 to the proceeding.

Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets.

The "Moschetta" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re:
100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All
actions involve the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated
parmesan cheese product in the Eastern District of Missouri. They
request that the MDL encompass the actions in their initial motion
concerning Kraft and Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along
actions involving Target, SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-
Cheese Company. In its June 2, 2016 order, the MDL panel found
that common factual questions arise from plaintiffs' allegations
that defendants deceived consumers by marketing products
containing cellulose as "100%" grated parmesan cheese. Common
factual issues will include the underlying laboratory testing,
consumer perception of the labeling representation, the alleged
impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged role as a common supplier
for Wal-Mart and other stores selling house brand "100%" grated
parmesan cheese products. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary
Feinerman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-
05802.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 722 4266
          E-mail: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Eric Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360 7925
          E-mail: sellingerd@gtlaw.com


WARNER CHILCOTT: Defendant in 193 Actonel Product Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that
Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 193 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 392  unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 593 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel (R) . The claimants allege, among other
things, that Actonel (R) caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of
the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe
loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of
the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have been filed in either
federal or state courts in the United States. Warner Chilcott is
in the initial stages of discovery in these litigations. In
addition, Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product
liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott
in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that
Actonel (R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members
who ingested Actonel (R) to suffer atypical fractures or other
side effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class
certification. Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified
monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner
Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims
pursuant to a collaboration agreement relating to the two parties'
co-promotion of the product in the United States and other
countries. In addition, Warner Chilcott is also partially
indemnified by the Procter  & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ
claims that were pending at the time Warner Chilcott acquired
P&G's global pharmaceutical business in October 2009. In May and
September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into two settlement
agreements that resolved a majority of the then-existing ONJ-
related claims which are subject to the acceptance by the
individual respective claimants.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner
Chilcott maintains product liability insurance against such cases.
However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


WATTS WATER: Settlement of Ponzo and Klug Connector Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that the settlement of
the Ponzo and Klug Connector Class Actions remains pending.

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and
Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate
putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based
on the alleged failure of water heater connectors.

On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v.
Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo"). Watts Water
Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The
complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified
amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was
temporarily withdrawn pending final approval of the settlement.

In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in
a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors
(hereinafter "Klug").

On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss
the complaint. In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint which added additional named plaintiffs and
sought to correct deficiencies in the original complaint, Klug v.
Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District
of Nebraska. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. was dismissed as a
defendant. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an
unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss
the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on
December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint on
February 2, 2016. No formal discovery has yet been conducted.

The Company participated in mediation sessions of the Ponzo and
Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On February 16,
2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims. The proposed total settlement amount is $14 million, of
which the Company is expected to pay approximately $4.1 million
after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9 million.

The parties executed final written settlement agreements in April
2016. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was
submitted on May 4, 2016.

The settlement is subject to preliminary court approval and final
court approval after a fairness hearing. Accordingly, there can be
no assurance that the proposed settlement will be approved in its
current form. If the settlement is not approved, the Company
intends to continue to vigorously contest the allegations in these
cases.

During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded a
liability of $14 million related to the Ponzo and Klug matters of
which $7.8 million was included in current liabilities and $6.2
million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.5
million receivable was recorded in current assets related to
insurance proceeds due, based on costs incurred as of December 31,
2015, subject to a separate final written settlement agreement
that becomes effective if the class action settlement is approved.

Watts Water is a supplier of products and solutions that manage
and conserve the flow of fluids and energy into, through and out
of buildings in the residential and commercial markets of the
Americas, EMEA and Asia-Pacific.


WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces 2 Class Actions Related to Data Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wendy's Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in two putative class actions filed in the
United States on behalf of customers and payment card issuing
banks seeking damages and other relief allegedly arising from the
data incident.

Earlier this year, the Company engaged cybersecurity experts to
conduct a comprehensive investigation into unusual credit card
activity at some Wendy's restaurants. Investigation into this
activity is nearing completion. Based on the preliminary findings
of the investigation and other information, the Company believes
that malware, installed through the use of compromised third-party
vendor credentials, affected one particular point of sale system
at fewer than 300 of approximately 5,500 franchised North America
Wendy's restaurants, starting in the fall of 2015. These findings
also indicate that the Aloha point of sale system has not been
impacted by this activity. The Aloha system is already installed
at all Company-owned restaurants and in a majority of franchise-
owned restaurants, with implementation throughout the North
America system targeted by year-end 2016. The Company expects that
it will receive a final report from its investigator in the near
future.

The Company has worked aggressively with its investigator to
identify the source of the malware and quantify the extent of the
malicious cyber-attacks, and has disabled and eradicated the
malware in affected restaurants. The Company continues to work
through a defined process with the payment card brands, its
investigator and federal law enforcement authorities to complete
the investigation.

Based upon the investigation to date, approximately 50 franchise
restaurants are suspected of experiencing, or have been found to
have, unrelated cybersecurity issues. The Company and affected
franchisees are working to verify and resolve these issues.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two putative class
actions filed in the United States on behalf of customers and
payment card issuing banks seeking damages and other relief
allegedly arising from the data incident. In addition, claims may
also be made by payment card networks against the affected
franchisees. These claims and investigations may adversely affect
how we or our franchisees operate the business, divert the
attention of management from the operation of the business, have
an adverse effect on our reputation, result in additional costs,
and adversely affect our results of operations.

The Wendy's Company is the parent company of its 100% owned
subsidiary holding company, Wendy's Restaurants, LLC.


                            *********

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  * * *