CAR_Public/160713.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 139




                            Headlines


A&S ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Louis" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
AECOM: Settlement Reached in Class Action v. Australian Unit
AKORN INC: Still Defends Shareholder Action in Illinois
ALIBABA GROUP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Christine Asia Suit
ALIBABA GROUP: Briefing on Demurrer to Be Completed in July 2016

AMERICAN HONDA: "Pfeiffer" Sues Over Lack of Auto-Off Feature
ASCENA RETAIL: ANN Inc. Merger Litigation Dismissed
BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Fund Files Antitrust Lawsuit Over SSAs
BELL MOBILITY: Settles 911 Class Action for $1 Million
BOOT BARN: Wage-And-Hour Class Action Filed in California

BUTTE, CA: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
CAPITAL ONE: "Roberts" Sues Over Overdraft Fees
CASALE CONSTRUCTION: Sued in Del. Over Home Construction Defects
CHARLESTON MIYABI: "Stone" Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns
CHINA CERAMICS: Settles Class Action Litigation

CODE REBEL: Aegis Identity Terminated Merger Agreement
CONN'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Granted in Part
COOPER COMPANIES: Still Defends Contact Lens Manufacturer Suits
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Motor Fuel Suit Ongoing
COVISINT CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Securities Action

DALE STEIN: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Pregnancy Discrimination
DEBBIE SCHULTZ: Bernie Sanders' Supporters File Class Action
DENVER PARENT: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 27
DES MOINES: Residents Await Franchise Fee Settlement Refunds
DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in RMBS Suit in New York

DEUTSCHE BANK: No Discovery Yet in BlackRock Suit
DIAKON LOGISTICSA: "Johnson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
DJI TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Falsified Drone's Return Home Feature
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action
EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Certification Discovery Ongoing

EMERA INCORPORATED: Says NMGC Case Settlements Not Material
EMERA INCORPORATED: Defending Suits Over TECO Acquisition
ENDURANCE ROUSTABOUT: "Provencio" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ENERGY DRILLING: "Lee" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
FACEBOOK INC: "Huhn" Suit Removed to D.N.J.

FORD AUSTRALIA: Unhappy Customers Seek Refunds
GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over Drivers' Contractor Status
HALYARD HEALTH: "Jackson" Sues Over Share Price Drop
HHGREGG INC: Oral Argument Held June 29 in Class Action Appeal
HOME DEPOT: U.S. Financial Institution Class Actions Ongoing

HP INC: Oral Argument Held in Cement & Concrete Suit
IBIO INC: Settlement Funded by Insurance Carrier
INCH CONSTRUCTION: James Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Wage Act
INOVALON HOLDINGS: "Patel" Sues Over Share Price Drop
IRON MOUNTAIN: Court Dismissed Class Action

ITC HOLDINGS: Bid for Summary Disposition in Merger Suit Denied
ITC HOLDINGS: Deal Reached in Guerra, Mehrotra & Severance Suits
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 8 Final Approval Hearing Set
JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Reached Settlement in Capacitor Suit

KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 12 Preliminary Hearing Set
KOHLS CORPORATION: 19 TCPA Suits Consolidated in MDL 2736
L.F. DONNELL INC: "Fisher" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
LINCOLN-WAY NORTH: Bond Investors Urged to Join Class Action
LOGMEIN INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Discontinued Free App

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Class Action
MASSACHUSETTS: Four Bridgewater Staff Banned Amid Class Action
MEDIVATION INC: "Stewart" Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
MENTOR GRAPHICS: Robbins Geller  Appointed as Lead Counsel
MERCHANT DATA: "Kinney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

MERCY HEALTH: Faces "Alban" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Disability Advocates File Suit
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Lfoundry Case
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Airbag Suit
NINE ENERGY: "West" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

NOTIS GLOBAL: Court Continued Final Fairness Hearing to August 15
O&J RESTAURANT: "Picado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
OI S.A.: Defendant in 66 Civil Class Actions by Attorney General
OI S.A.: Defendant in Class Action by Federal Prosecutor's Office
PARTNERS FEDERAL: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Draft Fee Program

PDQ TRANSPORTATION: "Terrel" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
PEOPLES BANK: Faces "Langston" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Merger Deal with DS Healthcare Terminated
POST FOODS: "Wu" Alleges Carcinogen in Wheat Products
POST FOODS: "Stephenson" Alleges Carcinogen in Wheat Products

PRINCE GEORGE, WA: Carraway Sex Scandal Prompts Class Action
QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Thoma Bravo Merger
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal
QUALITY SYSTEMS: "Foss" Action Stayed Pending Appeal
QUALITY SYSTEMS: July 28 Hearing on Summary Adjudication Bid

RENTOKIL NORTH: Sued in Cal. Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
SEIU HEALTHCARE: Union Members Lose Class Certification Bid
SIGNET JEWELERS: Motion For Protective Order Pending
SIGNET JEWELERS: Opt-In Collective Action Conditionally Certified
SIGNET JEWELERS: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari

SIGNET JEWELERS: Delaware Supreme Court Affirmed Case Dismissal
SOLAR BEAR: "Izquierdo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Marchelos" Class Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
STACCA RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Minimum, OT Pay
SUTTER WEST: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Objectors Appeal Settlement Approval
SYNCREON TECHNOLOGY: Faces "King" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
TARGET CORPORATION: Faces Police Retirement System Action
TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
THRIVE MARKET: Sanchez Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code

TRANSAMERICA: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action for $3.8 Million
TRANSUNION: Updates on Bankruptcy Tradeline Litigation
TRANSUNION: Stay in Miller Litigation Lifted
TRANSUNION: Court Certified National Class in "Henderson" Suit
UBER TECHNOLGIES: Seeks Consolidation of 11 TCPA Suits

UNIGROUP INC: "Judge" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
VALLEJO, CA: Faces "Mustard" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
VALVE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Illegal Betting
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Klein Class Action for $10 Billion
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canadian Vehicle Owners Await Compensation

VOLKSWAGEN: U.S. Justice Dep't Gathers Emissions Scandal Evidence
WALT DISNEY BENEFIT PLANS: Sued Over Pension Fund Mismanagement
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Bid to Dismiss "Epstein" Suit Underway
XURA INC: Israeli Optionholder Class Action Pending
YAHOO INC: Must Face Class Action Over Unsolicited SMS Messages


                            *********


A&S ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Louis" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mythsuka Louis and other similarly situated individuals, v. A&S
Entertainment, LLC, d/b/a The Office; Claudette M. Pierre; and
Gregory Pierre, Case 1:16-cv-22832-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2016),
seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid overtime and
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A&S Entertainment LLC is a Florida Limited Liability and is
approximately six years old.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Martin R. Saenz, Esq.
     Edward R. Rosenberg, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
             ed@saenzanderson.com


AECOM: Settlement Reached in Class Action v. Australian Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
AECOM said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that as previously disclosed
in AECOM's prior periodic reports, in 2005 and 2006 AECOM's
Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd ("AECOM
Australia"), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a tolled
motorway tunnel project in Australia that resulted in a securities
class action lawsuit filed in 2012 against AECOM Australia and
others in the Federal Court of Australia.   The parties have
agreed to a settlement made without admission and that is
conditional on Federal Court approval.  This conditional
settlement is not expected to have a material impact to the
financial results of AECOM.


AKORN INC: Still Defends Shareholder Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend a
shareholder and derivative litigation.

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.


ALIBABA GROUP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Christine Asia Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Colleen McMahon on June 27, 2016, issued an amended
Memorandum Decision and Order granting, in full, Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, Christine Asia Co. Ltd. et al v. Ma et
al., Case No. 1:15-md-02631 (S.D.N.Y.).

Alibaba Group Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that, "In January 2015, we
were named as a defendant in the first of seven putative
shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Central
District of California and Northern District of California. The
operative complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who acquired our American Depositary Shares from
October 21, 2014 through January 29, 2015, inclusive. The
complaints assert claims under the United States Securities
Exchange Act of 1934."

"In June 2015, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of the actions in the Central District of
California to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the four actions before
that court. In June 2015, the Panel ordered transfer of the action
pending in the Northern District of California to the Southern
District of New York. All of the actions are now pending in the
Southern District of New York under the master caption, Christine
Asia Co., Ltd. et al. v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al., No.
1:15-md-02631-CM (S.D.N.Y.) and related cases.

"The Southern District of New York has appointed a Lead Plaintiff
and Lead Counsel on behalf of the putative class pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

"In June 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which generally alleges that the registration statement
and prospectus filed in connection with our initial public
offering and various other public statements contained
misrepresentations regarding our business operations and financial
prospects, and failed to disclose, among other things, regulatory
scrutiny by the SAIC prior to our initial public offering.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that we should have disclosed a
2014 SAIC anti-counterfeiting initiative in the e-commerce market,
a July 16, 2014 administrative guidance meeting we had with the
SAIC that was later the subject of a self-described "white paper"
issued and then withdrawn by the SAIC, and the alleged impact of
the sale of counterfeit goods on our financial results. Plaintiffs
assert claims against our company and Executive Chairman Jack Yun
Ma, Executive Vice Chairman Joseph C. Tsai, then Chief Executive
Officer Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and Chief Financial Officer Maggie Wei
Wu for violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the United States
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

"In July 2015, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim. Briefing on the motion was
complete on September 2015. The parties are awaiting the court's
decision."


ALIBABA GROUP: Briefing on Demurrer to Be Completed in July 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alibaba Group Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that in the California State
Consolidated Securities Act Actions, briefing on the demurrer is
expected to be complete in July 2016.

The Company said, "In October 2015, we were named as a defendant
in the first of three securities class action lawsuits filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County.
The three actions were consolidated in October 2015, and
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on March 25, 2016. The
consolidated action is captioned Gary Buelow, et al. v. Alibaba
Group Holding Limited, et al., No. CIV-535692 (San Mateo Sup.
Ct.). The consolidated action is brought on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased Alibaba American Depositary
Shares pursuant or traceable to the IPO. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the United States
Securities Act of 1933."

"The consolidated complaint names our company, Executive Chairman
Jack Yun Ma, Executive Vice Chairman Joseph C. Tsai, then Chief
Executive Officer Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu, Chief Financial Officer
Maggie Wei Wu, Director Masayoshi Son, General Counsel and
Secretary Timothy A. Steinert, and 34 separate underwriters of our
initial public offering. It alleges that our company, our senior
officers who signed the registration statement, and the
underwriters made material misrepresentations in our initial
offering materials similar to those alleged in the above federal
consolidated complaint.

"We filed a demurrer for failure to state a claim and lack of
subject matter jurisdiction in response to the consolidated
complaint on May 6, 2016. Briefing on the demurrer is expected to
be complete in July 2016."


AMERICAN HONDA: "Pfeiffer" Sues Over Lack of Auto-Off Feature
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Company,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04507 (C.D. Cal., June 22,
2016), seeks restitution and damages, including enhanced damages,
punitive damages, costs and disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded;, costs and attorneys' fees and
such other or further relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
breach of implied/express warranty, fraudulent concealment and
violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Plaintiffs allege that Honda failed to install a switch off
feature in their hands-free Bluetooth link after the car's
ignition switch is turned off.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Telephone: (213) 330-7150
     Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
     Email: lee@hbsslaw.com

            - and -

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


ASCENA RETAIL: ANN Inc. Merger Litigation Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2016, that the
Court of Chancery in Delaware has entered an order dismissing the
ANN Inc. Merger Litigation.

In May 2015, plaintiff The Vladimir Gusinky Living Trust, a
stockholder of ANN INC., ("ANN") filed a class action (the
"Action") in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court of
Chancery") against ANN's board members alleging breach of
fiduciary duty. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. ("Ascena") and ANN were
also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the
other defendants. The claimed breach derived from the execution of
that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 17, 2015, by
and among Ascena, Avian Acquisition Corp. and ANN, which was
alleged to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for shares of
ANN common stock. The Action, among other things, sought to enjoin
the merger, seek additional disclosure of facts relating to the
merger in connection with the stockholder vote thereupon, obtain
higher merger consideration or seek monetary damages.

On August 6, 2015, as part of a tentative settlement of the
Action, ANN filed a supplement on Form 8-K to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus to provide supplemental disclosures
addressing the plaintiff's claims, pertaining to, among other
things, the ANN financial advisor's fairness opinion and
underlying financial analyses and certain financial forecasts
prepared for ANN.

On April 13, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered an order
dismissing the stockholder action and retaining jurisdiction
solely for the purpose of determining plaintiff's counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses, relating to the supplemental disclosures to the June 16,
2015 Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Ascena has agreed to pay
fees and expenses of $140,000 to plaintiff's counsel within 40
days after filing of this Form 8-K and plaintiff's counsel has
agreed not to make any application to the Court for additional
attorneys' fees and expenses. This fee has not been approved by or
ruled upon by the Court of Chancery. Payment by Ascena of the
foregoing fees and expenses will fully and finally resolve any
remaining issues in the Action, and the parties have asked the
Court to close the Action finally and for all purposes.


BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Fund Files Antitrust Lawsuit Over SSAs
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF BRISTOL PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself, and, in a
representative capacity, on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.; CREDIT
AGRICOLE S.A.; CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK;
CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL;
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; NOMURA HOLDINGS,
INC.; NOMURA INTERNATIONAL PLC; NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; HIREN GUDKA; AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU; SHAILEN PAU; BHARDEEP
SINGH HEER; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS NOS. 1-100, Defendants, Case
1:16-cv-05203 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2016), was brought under the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the common
law of Unjust Enrichment, for, inter alia, treble damages,
disgorgement and restitution, and costs of suit, for Defendants'
alleged combination and conspiracy to restrain trade in Supra-
sovereign, Sub-sovereign and Agency bonds ("SSAs"), from at least
January 1, 2010 through April 27, 2014.

Defendants are banking and/or financial services corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     707 Broadway, Suite 1000
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 233-4565
     Fax: (619) 233-0508
     E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com

        - and -

     David R. Scott, Esq.
     Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     156 South Main Street
     P.O. Box 192
     Colchester, CT 06415
     Phone: (860) 537-5537
     Fax: (860) 537-4432
     E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
             alawrence@scott-scott.com

        - and -

     Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
     Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
     J. Alex Vargas, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Chrysler Building
     405 Lexington Ave., 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10174
     Phone: (212) 223-6444
     Fax: (212) 223-6334
     E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com
             pbarile@scott-scott.com
             avargas@scott-scott.com

        - and -

     Michael J. Guzman, Esq.
     KELLOGG HUBER HANSEN TODD EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
     1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Phone: (202) 326-7900
     Fax: (202) 326-7999
     E-mail: mguzman@khhte.com


BELL MOBILITY: Settles 911 Class Action for $1 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Barton, writing for CBC News, reports that Bell Mobility
has agreed to pay a $1 million settlement after losing a 10-year
class action lawsuit filed by James Anderson and his son Samuel.
The Andersons were awarded $5,000 of that money.  Now the question
is how much the thousands of other northerners affected by the
class action suit will get.

It was in 2005 that Anderson signed a contract for a new cell
phone with Bell Mobility -- at the time, the only cellular phone
service provider in Yellowknife -- and learned of the 75 cent fee
the company charged for 911 service.

That service does not exist in any of the territories, except in
the city of Whitehorse.

According to his lawyers, Anderson's lawsuit is the first class
action in all three territories to ever see the light of day.
Reflecting, Anderson says he always knew the case had merits.

"It defies logic to pay for a service that you don't receive and
can't receive."

The case has now finally come to a close.  After losing at trial,
and exhausting every appeal, Bell has agreed to pay $1,016,336.57.
But it's unclear how much of that will go to northerners.

Any Bell Mobility customer in the North with a contract prior to
April 13, 2010 paid $9 a year for the 911 fee and was
automatically included in the class action.  The lawsuit estimated
that could be up to 20,000 customers across the North.

"We're a bit in the dark," said Keith Landy, one of Anderson's
lawyers.

"All of this information is in the records of Bell Mobility.  We
certainly don't know as someone outside that process."

Bell is tasked with doing the math, so to speak.  The company has
90 days to credit accounts of people who are still Bell Mobility
customers.  It will refund others by cheque to their last known
address.

Justice Ron Veale noted that the maximum each customer could
receive is "less than $100."

Though a small amount, the judge voiced concerns at a hearing in
early June that affected customers, many of whom may have moved or
are no longer a Bell customer, may not get their compensation.

"[That's] why the judge imposed a reporting condition," Mr. Landy
said.  "Bell has to advise the court exactly who's been paid, when
they've been paid, and how much they've been paid."

Bell must file an affidavit with that information in court by
April 2017.  Any money leftover that doesn't make it to customers
will be donated to the Stanton Territorial Hospital Foundation.

At the hearing, a lawyer for Bell couldn't specify how many
northern customers are included, but agreed that the 20,000 figure
is in the ballpark.

"I'm comfortable saying, Your Honour, that the significant
majority of class members remain Bell Mobility subscribers,"
Robert Dean said.

More than half of the $1 million settlement, almost $516,000, will
go to Anderson's lawyers -- something Justice Veale said is far
from a windfall.

"I don't have any question but that [the lawyers] have earned
their money in this particular case.  It's been a long slog," he
said in court.

Anderson agrees, saying the risk of the case always fell on his
legal team.

"The cost to my son and myself was just a cost in time because the
lawyers take all the risk in a class action suit.  They run the
chance of gaining nothing."

Mr. Landy said the costs being paid to them is slightly more than
half of the actual costs to litigate the case for about nine
years.

The judge also commended the Andersons for the service they
provided for northerners.

"You've been along for a long ride," Veale said.  "I think you've
done a very admirable job, and I thank you for bringing it
forward."

Veale also said the $5,000 awarded to Anderson was "well earned."

Anderson says he'll split the "token award" with his son. He says
he only ever expected to be reimbursed the "unfair and illegal
fee," but says the award is "nice nevertheless."

For him, the lawsuit was never about the money, but about
corporations nickel and diming customers.

What does Bell have to say?

Anderson calls the win a "hollow victory," saying Bell's
insistence on dragging out the case might dissuade the average Joe
from taking on corporations.

"I think it might be discouraging to others," he said.
"Corporations have such deep pockets."

Now he wants to know what Bell has to say for itself, and how deep
those pockets were.  Anderson would like to know how much the
company paid to fight the case at every juncture, even when it was
repeatedly losing.

"I was a Bell shareholder at one time. . . certainly shareholders
deserve an explanation and a true accounting."

Through the years, Bell has always refused to comment on the case
because it was before the courts.

CBC requested an interview with Bell.

The company responded with an emailed statement: "We've reached an
agreement that the plaintiffs [the Andersons] consider fair and
reasonable."

Anderson's lawyer says anyone who believes they should receive a
refund and has not heard from Bell, can contact his office.


BOOT BARN: Wage-And-Hour Class Action Filed in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended March 26, 2016, that on April 28, 2016, two
employees, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated employees, filed a wage-and-hour class action, which
includes claims for penalties under California's Private Attorney
General Act, in the Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 16 CE
CG 01330, alleging violations of California's wage and hour,
overtime, meal break and statement of wages rules and regulations
among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages and penalties. The Company intends to defend this claim
vigorously. At present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
loss that may arise from this matter, but has recorded as of March
26, 2016 an amount for the estimated probable loss, which is not
material to the audited financial statements. Depending on the
actual outcome of pending litigation, charges in excess of such
recorded amount could be recorded in the future, which may have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.


BUTTE, CA: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA HOFFMAN, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF BUTTE, Defendant, Case 2:16-
cv-01487-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., June 30, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages,
costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Mastagni, Esq.
     Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
     Ace T. Tate, Esq.
     MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
     1912 "I" Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811
     Phone: (916) 446-4692
     Fax: (916) 447-4614


CAPITAL ONE: "Roberts" Sues Over Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------
Tawanna M. Roberts, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, doing
business as Capital One Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04841-
LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2016), seeks restitution of all overdraft
fees paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains derived from
misconduct, actual damages, punitive and exemplary damages;, pre-
judgment interest, costs and disbursements in connection with this
action including reasonable attorney fees and such other relief
resulting from unjust enrichment and breach of contract and
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of New York
General Business Laws.

Defendants allegedly deduct a $35 overdraft fee automatically from
the checking account linked to a debit card for transactions in
excess of the current balance despite claims by the Plaintiff that
this wasn't stipulated in their contract.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
     James E. Miller, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER, SHAH, LLP
     65 Main Street
     Chester, CT 06412
     Telephone: (860) 526-1100
     Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
     Email: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
            Jmiller@sfmslaw.com

            - and -

     Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
     Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
     Andrew Silver, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Telephone: (202) 973-0900
     Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
     Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
            Jkaliel@tzlegal.com


CASALE CONSTRUCTION: Sued in Del. Over Home Construction Defects
-------------------------------------------- -------------------
JEROME PARSONS, COKILIAR BROWN-SMITH, TYNETTA CLEMENT, JASON
HARRY, DOMINIQUE DARBY, STEPHANIE LAMBERT, MARK SEVEC, LONEDA
KENNEDY, KEVIN MCCARTHY, BRANDON WITT, IVORY CHARLEMAGNE, ANDREW
PFIEFER, MEGHAN ERDMAN, ALISHA MCCORD, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CASALE
CONSTRUCTION LLC, and CHRISTINA OVERLOOK LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. N16C-06-220 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks
prompt redress for significant construction defects plaguing in
Plaintiffs' new homes. Most importantly, the houses are slowly
sinking into the infamously unstable soil of Wilmington's
waterfront area.

The Properties suffer from serious construction defects that have
resulted and will result in severe structural and physical
instability, water and moisture penetration, deterioration,
unattractiveness, loss in marketability and market value, and
other dangerous conditions. These defects were allegedly caused by
improper and deficient engineering, construction, materials, and
workmanship, which failed to conform to applicable code
provisions, accepted workmanship practices, manufacturers'
instructions, and other relevant guidelines.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts and
omissions, Plaintiffs have allegedly sustained, and will continue
to sustain: substantial injury and damages to the value of the
Properties; damage to their personal property; deprivation of the
peaceful use, occupancy, and enjoyment of the Properties; damage
from exposure to safety hazards; damage from mental grief and
anguish; damage from an inability to sell the property; and damage
from the expenditure of funds for repairs, corrections, and
maintenance.

Casale is a building construction company in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lee, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West St., 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984 3800


CHARLESTON MIYABI: "Stone" Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns
------------------------------------------------------------
William Stone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Charleston Miyabi, Inc., Capital Japan,
Inc. D/B/A Miyabi, United Will Kyoto USA, Inc., Koichiro Hirao,
Individually, Koichiro Maeda, Individually and John Doe 1-10,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02129 (D.S.C., June 22,
2016), seeks actual damages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and
costs and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Defendants own and operate a Japanese Steak & Sushi Bar where
Stone worked. He claims to receive below minimum wage rates and
that tips were illegally withheld.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CHINA CERAMICS: Settles Class Action Litigation
-----------------------------------------------
China Ceramics Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer of ceramic tiles
used for exterior siding and for interior flooring and design in
residential and commercial buildings, on June 29 announced that
the class action litigation brought against the Company and the
individual defendants has been concluded and administration of the
settlement will be supervised by the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court").

The Company previously disclosed that it had reached an agreement
to settle the outstanding class action litigation.  On
February 6, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants
reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action
litigation brought against the Company in consideration of the
payment by the Company of $850,000, consisting of $310,000 payable
in cash and $540,000 to be issued in the Company's common shares.
On January 4, 2016, the Court held a final hearing to consider
approval of the settlement, and on April 22, 2016, the Court
issued its Memorandum and Order approving the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the number of shares of common
stock represented by the $540,000 stock settlement amount is
required to be determined based upon the average closing
transaction price of the Company's common stock during the ten
trading days preceding the date of the final hearing, or
January 4, 2016.  Therefore, under the terms of the settlement,
the Company was obligated to issue 554,415 shares of common stock
(which equates to 69,302 shares after the 1 for 8 reverse stock
split recently implemented by the Company), which will be freely
tradeable when distributed.

Subsequent to the Court's final approval of the settlement,
counsel for the lead plaintiffs sought to change the date for the
determination of the number of shares issuable in the settlement,
asking that the Court to substitute the date of the final order
approving the settlement for the date of the final hearing
currently in the settlement documents, over the objection of the
defendants.  The action suggested by counsel for the lead
plaintiffs would have resulted in the issuance by the Company of
substantial number of additional shares of the Company's common
stock in the settlement since the market value of the Company's
common stock had dropped in the time period since January 4, 2016.

On June 20, 2016, the Court denied the request by the counsel for
the lead plaintiffs to modify the terms of the settlement.  As a
result of the Court's order, the terms and provisions of the
settlement remain unchanged.  The Company previously delivered the
cash and the stock payable in the settlement to the agent
designated in the settlement documents.  Therefore, the class
action litigation has been concluded.  The settlement is being
administered by an independent agent appointed by the Court, and
is being supervised by the Court.  The Company does not expect to
have any further involvement in the matter, and is not aware of
the expected timing of the distribution of net settlement
proceeds.

                 About China Ceramics Co., Ltd.

China Ceramics Co., Ltd. -- http://www.cceramics.com-- is a
manufacturer of ceramic tiles in China.  The Company's ceramic
tiles are used for exterior siding, interior flooring, and design
in residential and commercial buildings. China Ceramics' products,
sold under the "Hengda" or "HD", "Hengdeli" or "HDL", the "TOERTO"
and "WULIQIAO" brands, and the "Pottery Capital of Tang Dynasty"
brands, are available in over 2,000 style, color and size
combinations and are distributed through a network of exclusive
distributors as well as directly to large property developers.


CODE REBEL: Aegis Identity Terminated Merger Agreement
------------------------------------------------------
Code Rebel Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2016, that Aegis
Identity Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Aegis") on May
17, 2016, provided a letter to Code Rebel Corporation that
terminated the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 11, 2016
(the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Aegis, the Company and CR
Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation wholly owned by
the Company ("CRAC").

The Termination Notice stated that Aegis had a right under Article
VII of the Merger Agreement to terminate the Merger Agreement
because of certain specified events stated in the Termination
Notice, including (i) the issuance by the SEC on May 6, 2016 of an
Order of Suspension of Trading (the "Order") suspending the public
trading of the Company's common stock, (ii) the filing of a class
action lawsuit against the Company (and the likelihood that
several more will soon be filed), and (iii) the likelihood that
the Company will not be able to fulfill its covenants under the
Merger Agreement.  The Termination Notice stated that it does not
constitute a waiver by Aegis of any rights or claims it may have
against Code Rebel arising out of the Merger Agreement or any
other matter.

The material terms of the Merger Agreement and certain related
agreements were summarized in the Original 8-K, and the Merger
Agreement and related agreements were filed as exhibits to the
Original 8-K.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Code Rebel securities
from August 17,2015 through May 5, 2016, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Code
Rebel investors under the federal securities laws.


CONN'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a Texas court has
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' complaint in the Securities Class Action
Litigation.

The Company said, "We and one of our current and one of our former
executive officers are defendants in a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), In re Conn's
Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the
"Consolidated Securities Action"). The Consolidated Securities
Action started as three separate purported securities class action
lawsuits filed between March 5, 2014 and May 5, 2014 in the Court
that were consolidated into the Consolidated Securities Action on
June 3, 2014. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action
allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about our
business, operations, and prospects. They allege violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to certify a class
of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Conn's common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put
options between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint
does not specify the amount of damages sought."

On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court
dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain
other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered the plaintiffs
to further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling,
and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended
Complaint on July 21, 2015. The remaining defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on August 28, 2015. The briefing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the Court held
a hearing on defendants' motion over the course of two days, on
March 25, 2016 and March 29, 2016.

On May 6, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.
Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion requesting the Court's
decision be certified for interlocutory appeal to the United
States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court has not yet ruled
on that motion.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these
claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or
outcome of any of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss from these
claims.


COOPER COMPANIES: Still Defends Contact Lens Manufacturer Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that since March 2015, over
50 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens
consumers alleging that contact lens manufacturers, in conjunction
with their respective Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired
to reach agreements between each other and certain distributors
and retailers regarding the prices at which certain contact lenses
could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages
against CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens manufacturers,
distributors and retailers, in various courts around the United
States. In June 2015, all of the class action cases were
consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida. CooperVision and the other
defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaints which
currently is pending, and the actions currently are in discovery.
CooperVision denies the allegations and intends to defend the
actions vigorously.

"We are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse
effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company said.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Motor Fuel Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended May 8, 2016, that the appeal in a class
action lawsuit against motor fuel retailers remains pending.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On
April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in which
it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in
the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date
of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States
of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class
representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments
to class members.

On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised
settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24,
2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement.
A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the
order approving the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award
of $10 million in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs
and payments to class representatives. A report and recommendation
has been issued in favor of a fee award of $3.8 million, to which
the Company is objecting.

On March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most
favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it
seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other
defendants. The motion was denied on January 23, 2015.

Final judgment was entered on September 22, 2015, and the Company
has filed a notice of appeal.

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


COVISINT CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Securities Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Covisint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a consolidated
class action lawsuit have entered into a stipulation and agreement
of settlement to dismiss all claims with prejudice and settle the
securities class action.

The Company said, "Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us, our directors and former
directors, and certain of our officers and former officers
alleging violation of securities laws in connection with our IPO
and seeking unspecified damages. These lawsuits were consolidated
in the action entitled Desrocher v. Covisint Corporation, et al.,
No. 14-cv-03878 (the "Securities Class Action"). On October 14,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Complaint") alleging violations of Regulation S-K
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
("Securities Act"). The Complaint alleges, among other things that
the IPO's registration statement contained (1) untrue statements
and omissions of material facts related to the Company's projected
revenues for fiscal 2014, (2) materially inaccurate statements
regarding the Company's revenue recognition policy, and (3)
omissions of known trends, uncertainties, and significant risk
factors as required to be disclosed by Regulation S-K.

"On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement to dismiss all claims with prejudice and
settle the Securities Class Action (the "Settlement"). The
Settlement was reached after the Court denied defendants' motions
to dismiss and granted class certification of a class of all
persons who purchased the Company's stock in and/or traceable to
the Company's IPO on or about September 26, 2013, seeking to
pursue remedies under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The
Settlement, which is subject to Court approval, provides for a
payment by the defendants of $8.0 million. The Company's uninsured
portion of the settlement amount was $0.4 million, which was
recorded as a liability as of March 31, 2016."


DALE STEIN: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Pregnancy Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLE PRAGER, and all other individuals similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DALE STEIN & ASSOCIATES, O.D., P.C. d/b/a DRS. STJIN
& GOLDSCHNEIDER; DALE STEIN; WAYNE GOLDSCHNEIDER and JOHN DOES 1-5
AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. L-2392-16 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
June 27, 2016), seeks judgment against the Defendants
together with compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest,
cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable
back pay, equitable front pay, equitable reinstatement, and any
other relief the Court deems equitable and just, pursuant to the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) alleging pregnancy
discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation.

According to the complaint, prior to going to work, the Plaintiff
called Foley and told her that she was suffering from morning
sickness and asked if there was anyone who could stay on the job
so that Plaintiff could stay home that day. Plaintiff told Foley
that she would be willing to come into work if no one else was
available to cover for her. However, Foley told plaintiff that it
was okay for her to stay home from work due to her morning
sickness. The following day on February 4, 2016 at 8:30a.m., Foley
called plaintiff and told her that Defendants were terminating her
from her job because she called out of work.

Dale Stein offers comprehensive eye care for the entire family. It
also offers treatment of eye disease, refractive and cataract
surgery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


DEBBIE SCHULTZ: Bernie Sanders' Supporters File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Datoc, writing for The Daily Caller, reports that more
than 100 Bernie Sanders supporters have sued the Democratic
National Committee and its chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for
fraud.

The suit claims that Wasserman Schultz and the DNC "knowingly made
false statements and omissions" that undermined the 2016
Democratic primary process.

"Despite there being every indication that the 2016 Democratic
primary would be contested by multiple candidates, including
Sanders, the DNC Memo makes no mention of any Democratic candidate
except Clinton, and builds the DNC's election strategy on the
assumption that Clinton will be the nominee, with no doubts
attached," reads the brief.

The Broward Palm Beach New Times notes that the filing comes just
after hacked DNC emails revealed the Committee had "been planning
strategies to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump in the
general election."


DENVER PARENT: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 27
-------------------------------------------------------
Denver Parent Corporation and Venoco, Inc. said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June
6, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a
hearing to approve a litigation settlement is scheduled for July
27, 2016.

In August 2011 Timothy Marquez, the then- Chairman and CEO of
Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not
beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, five lawsuits were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against Venoco and each
of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and its
directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders
in connection with the Marquez Proposal.

On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with
Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which
Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would affect the going
private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger
Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware and three
suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants
Venoco and each of its directors.

In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint in which they requested that the
court determine among other things that (i) the merger
consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered
into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be
rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded
damages to compensate them for the loss as a result of the breach
of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions have
been administratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware
case.

An Insurance Settlement Agreement and Release between all of
Venoco's Director & Officer insurance carriers and all defendants
("Insurance Settlement") was executed on March 16, 2016. A
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement between
plaintiffs and defendants ("Litigation Settlement") was also
executed and filed with the Delaware Chancery Court.  A hearing in
that court to approve the Litigation Settlement is scheduled for
July 27, 2016.

The Litigation Settlement states that Venoco and/or the insurers
will pay $19 million to be distributed to the class.  The
Insurance Settlement states that the insurers will pay $16.5
million of the $19 million Litigation Settlement amount.  As a
result of the Litigation Settlement, $19 million was recorded in
the balance sheet within Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities,
with $16.5 million recorded as a receivable, as it is an insurance
recovery to be received pursuant to the Insurance Settlement.  The
portion that the Company will ultimately owe is $2.5 million which
is recorded in the statement of operations within General and
Administrative Expenses.


DES MOINES: Residents Await Franchise Fee Settlement Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tauscheck, writing for KCC, reports that Des Moines'
franchise fee debate is close to its conclusion after nearly a
decade, but Des Moines residents are still waiting for refunds
from the franchise fee settlement.

Those who paid a utility bill in the city between 2004 and 2009
may quality.

The company that will disburse the money advises recipients to be
patient, even though notices on size of refunds went out seven
months ago.

"Glad I don't have to pay the franchise fee anymore," said
Lisa Kragnes, who sued the city of Des Moines over what was
eventually ruled an illegal tax.  She had high hopes the franchise
fee would go away and utility customers would be reimbursed.

Neither has happened.

Customers are now paying more than ever after legislators ruled
cities can collect franchise fees.

The utility tax will eventually be 5 percent, but since more money
is needed by the city to pay off the $40 million borrowed after
losing the class action judgment, Des Moines will collect 7.5
percent for the next several years.

"Well, I was wondering, 'Where's my refund?'" Eric Menz said.

The lawyer for the city of Des Moines said the city paid the
entire judgement of $40.1 million over two years ago. That money
is currently under the control of Rust Consulting, of Faribault,
Minnesota, which is managing and disbursing the refunds.

Attorneys for the woman who started the class action suit on
behalf of Des Moines customers took their fees through the appeals
process, and all the way to the Supreme Court.

That took some time, but how much the lawyers are getting has been
settled and still no checks have been sent.

"I've just about given up on even ever receiving it," Menz said.
"I figure it'll be another year, 2 years, 3 years or probably when
I'm dead."

KCCI had that gentleman call the 800 number for the Des Moines
franchise fee settlement. The man who answered the call said, "We
are waiting for the court to issue an order for distribution,
which will take place once they have completed the processing of
all submitted claim forms."

When asked when that will be, the representative said the process
may take some time, and they have not been provided a time frame.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in RMBS Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2011-C5 said in its Form 10-D
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 1, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit
against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC").

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in
civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain RMBS
trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a
derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State
Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544
private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations
of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's
alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the
trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court
complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts,
which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the
state court action.

The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19,
2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural
grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and
Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the
motion to dismiss.

On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
federal court.  In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert claims
in connection with 62 trusts governed by Indenture Agreements.
The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have
suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion,
but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a
sum certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA will have an opportunity to file new defensive
motions with respect to the amended complaint.  Discovery is
ongoing.


DEUTSCHE BANK: No Discovery Yet in BlackRock Suit
-------------------------------------------------
WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2011-C5 said in its Form 10-D
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 1, 2016, that discovery has not yet commenced is a class
action lawsuit by BlackRock plaintiffs against Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company ("DBNTC").

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court
action in the Superior Court of California, Orange County that
involves 513 trusts governed by PSAs, alleging three causes of
action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach
of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  Plaintiffs purport to
bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current
owners of certificates in the 513 trusts.  The complaint currently
names only DBTCA as a defendant, even though DBTCA is the trustee
for only one of the 513 trusts.  The complaint alleges that the
trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of
U.S. $85.1 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand
for money damages in a sum certain. DBTCA has not yet been served
with the complaint. Discovery has not yet commenced.


DIAKON LOGISTICSA: "Johnson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Diakon Logistics, Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06776 (N.D. Ill., June 28, 2016), seeks
restitution for all deductions taken, prejudgment interest on
unpaid wages, and statutory damages for violation of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Diakon is a Delaware corporation doing business in Romeoville,
Illinois and is in the business of providing the delivery of
appliances, furniture, and other merchandise to its customers.
Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver and claims to be
denied overtime pay due to his misclassification as an independent
contractor.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradley Manewith, Esq.
     Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
     150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel. (312) 878-3210
     Fax (312) 878-3211
     Email: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
            msiegel@msiegellaw.com

            - and -

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Olena Savytska, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Tel. (617) 994 5800
     Fax (617) 994-5801
     Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
            bweber@llrlaw.com


DJI TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Falsified Drone's Return Home Feature
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY SCOTT TELLING, an individual; individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DJI TECHNOLOGY,
INC. a Los Angeles company, and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC625051 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016),
seeks to stop Defendants' unlawful attempt to advertise false or
misleading information concerning their drones' abilities to
"return" home.

According to the complaint, DJI allegedly misleads its users by
falsely advertising that their PHANTOM 3 drone has an automated
"return home feature" when the drone exits a set range, or loses
connection. This claim is false and misleading as the return home
feature doesn't always bring the drone back to the preset GPS
location, as found by Plaintiff. By advertising this information,
DJI is systematically violating California's unfair competition
law and California's prohibitions on false advertising.

The Phantom 3 is DJI's aerial vision more fully realized: A tiny
quadcopter drone with a professional-grade camera, endless
configurability, user-friendly polish, and a price tag that won't
require a new credit card.

DJI sells easy-to-fly drones and aerial photography systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Cohen, Esq.
          Heather M. Mckeon, Esq.
          COHEN McKEON LLP
          1910 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 440
          Los Angeles, CA 90026
          Telephone: (213)413 6400
          Facsimile: (213)403 6405
          E-mail: cohen@cohenmckeon.com
                  mckeon@cohenmckeon.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Street, citing Reuters, reports that DreamWorks Animation's
(DWA) CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg has been hit with a proposed class
action lawsuit over what a minority shareholder said was an
"extraordinarily valuable" agreement he made as part of the
planned $3.8 billion sale of the studio to Comcast (CMCSA).

In April, Comcast agreed to pay $41 per share for DreamWorks and
Karzenberg agreed to vote his controlling stock for the deal.

The transaction is expected to close by the end of the year.

The class action complaint from Ann Arbor City Employees
Retirement System, which is a DreamWorks shareholder, says that
Katzenberg breached his duty to minority shareholders by attaining
a lucrative consulting deal for himself, Reuters said.

When the deal closes, Mr. Katzenberg will be the chairman of
DreamWorks New Media, which will oversee an online studio for teen
content called Awesomeness TV and a 3-D animation business.

"Had Katzenberg not received the extraordinarily valuable side
deal, Comcast would have been required to increase the merger
price to secure Katzenberg's support," the complaint said,
according to Reuters.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Certification Discovery Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that the discovery related to class
certification is ongoing.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other
wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the
United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some
cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that
the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices
through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price
increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade,
including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In
addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States
Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America,
Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building Products LLC. On
April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JTML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims
on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American
Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they
conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting
affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel
representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to
which they agreed to settle all claims against them.  On March 16,
2014, the court entered orders preliminarily approving USG and
TIN's settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs.  Initial discovery in this litigation is complete.
Following completion of the initial discovery, the Company and
remaining co-defendants moved for summary judgement.

On February 18, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgement.  The Company's motion for permission to appeal
the summary judgement decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit is pending.  Discovery related to this class
certification is ongoing.

"At this stage we are unable to estimate the amount of any
reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses.
American Gypsum denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will
vigorously defend itself against these claims," the Company said.


EMERA INCORPORATED: Says NMGC Case Settlements Not Material
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emera Incorporated said in its Form F-10 Registration Statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016,
that the settlements in the New Mexico Gas Company ("NMGC") legal
proceedings are not material to NMGC's financial position as of
March 31, 2016.

In February 2011, NMGC experienced gas shortages due to weather-
related interruptions of electric service, weather-related
problems on the systems of various interstate pipelines and in gas
fields that are the sources of gas supplied to NMGC, and high
weather-driven usage. This gas supply disruption and high usage
resulted in the declaration of system emergencies by NMGC causing
involuntary curtailments of gas utility service to approximately
28,700 customers (residential and business).

In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class
consisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gas
utility service curtailed during the early-February system
emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. In
March 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting to
represent a class consisting of all "New Mexico municipalities and
governmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of the
natural gas utility shut off" also filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Does
at NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class
action filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff
purporting to represent a class of all similarly situated New
Mexico private businesses and enterprises.

In September 2015, a settlement was reached with all the named
plaintiff class representatives in both of the class actions. The
settlements were on an individual basis and not a class basis. The
settlements are not material to NMGC's financial position as of
March 31, 2016.


EMERA INCORPORATED: Defending Suits Over TECO Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------
Emera Incorporated said in its Form F-10 Registration Statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016,
that the Company continues to defend against class action lawsuits
in connection with the acquisition of TECO Energy.

On September 4, 2015, Emera and Merger Sub, entered into the
Acquisition Agreement with TECO Energy which provides for, among
other things, the acquisition by Emera of TECO Energy through the
merger of Merger Sub with and into TECO Energy.

Twelve securities class action lawsuits were filed against TECO
Energy and its directors by holders of TECO Energy securities
following the announcement of the Acquisition. Eleven suits were
filed in the Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, in and
for Hillsborough County, Florida. They alleged that TECO Energy's
board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in agreeing to
the Acquisition Agreement and sought to enjoin the Acquisition.

In addition, several of these suits alleged that one or more of
TECO Energy, Emera and an Emera affiliate aided and abetted such
alleged breaches. The securities class action lawsuits have been
consolidated per court order. Since the consolidation, two of the
complaints have been amended. One of those complaints has added a
claim against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty to disclose. The twelfth suit was filed in the Middle
District of Florida Federal Court and has subsequently been
voluntarily dismissed.

TECO Energy also received two separate shareholder demand letters
from purported shareholders of its stock. Both of these letters
demanded that TECO Energy maximize shareholder value and remove
alleged conflicts of interest as well as eliminate allegedly
preclusive deal protection devices. One of the letters also
demanded that TECO Energy refrain from consummating the
transaction with Emera. Both of these demand letters have
subsequently been withdrawn.

In November 2015, the parties to the lawsuits entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the various shareholder
plaintiffs to settle, subject to court approval, all of the
pending shareholder lawsuits challenging the proposed Acquisition.
As a result of the memorandum of understanding, TECO Energy made
additional disclosures related to the proposed Acquisition in a
proxy supplement.

Per the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the parties will
negotiate a settlement agreement and submit it to the court for
approval after the Acquisition is complete. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into a stipulation of
settlement.


ENDURANCE ROUSTABOUT: "Provencio" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO PROVENCIO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. ENDURANCE ROUSTABOUT LLC, Case 7:16-cv-
00257 (W.D. Tex., June 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Endurance Roustabout LLC provides a variety of services
(including, backhoe services, steamer rentals, welding services,
sandblasting, etc.) to customers in the oilfield industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Center
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Fax: (713) 222-6739


ENERGY DRILLING: "Lee" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Energy Drilling Company, Defendant, Case
No. 6:16-cv-00936 (E.D. Tex., June 28, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages and all other available
remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Energy Drilling Company is a Mississippi corporation with its
principal place of business in Natchez, Mississippi. It is a land
drilling contractor currently operating nine drilling rigs in
North and South Louisiana, East Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas and
Alabama. Lee worked as a rig watcher working on location near
Rusk, Texas.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Borsellino, Esq.
     Borsellino, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Tel: 817.908.9861
     Fax: 817.394.2412
     Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com


FACEBOOK INC: "Huhn" Suit Removed to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------
Jason Huhn, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-22363 (N.J. Super., May 26, 2016), was removed to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 22,
2016.

Plaintiff's complaint alleges violation of the New Jersey Truth-
in-Consumer, Contract Warranty & Notice Act regarding Facebook's
"Statement of Rights and Responsibilities" which excludes
liability or incidental or consequential damages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
     The Glapion Law Firm, LLC
     1704 Maxwell Drive
     Wall, NJ 07719

Defendant is represented by:

     Steven P. Benenson, Esq.
     PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN P.C.
     100 Southgate Pkwy., PO Box 1997
     Morristown, NJ 07962-1997
     Tel: (973) 538-4006
     Fax: (973) 538-5146
     Email: spbenenson@pbnlaw.com


FORD AUSTRALIA: Unhappy Customers Seek Refunds
----------------------------------------------
John Rolfe, writing for Daily Telegraph, reports that not only are
thousands of unhappy customers confronting Ford in a class action,
many are taking on the carmaker on their own -- and winning.

Some, such as Rosalie Rostan, have obtained refunds in direct
negotiation, while others are succeeding by holding the $67
billion company to account through consumer tribunals.

After returning her car to the dealership five times in five
weeks, Miss Rostan, of Melbourne, confronted the boss and got her
money back.

She recommended being proactive and persistent.

"Don't give up," Miss Rostan, of Melbourne, said.

News Corp Australia is aware of other consumers obtaining refunds
after filing proceedings in their state's consumer tribunal. Their
stories, however, cannot be told because they have been made to
sign nondisclosure agreements, which may be unlawful.

The Letchers, pictured, recently commenced action in the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). When the Melbourne
couple had first asked for a refund or replacement, they were told
that couldn't happen. That too may be unlawful.

It was put to them that they had to make a "contribution" towards
a replacement.

Under a "staff discount" offer, they were asked to find an extra
$12,000.

The Letchers told the dealership they were only willing to put in
$2000.  After a lengthy process through a Ford "case manager" and
a "review panel", their dealership asked for $6500.

That too was rejected and the Letchers, of Melbourne, were forced
to head to VCAT, arguing their Focus Trend automatic has major
failures, as defined by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).  They
say it is not of "acceptable quality" because it is not "free from
defects" or "durable" and that a reasonable person would not have
bought it if they had known it would persistently shudder and need
two clutch replacements inside 20,000km of use.

"The way they have treated us, out of principle, we are going to
fight this," Mr. Letcher said.

Some owners who are considering action have expressed confusion
about whether to commence proceedings against the dealership or
Ford Australia.

Go after both, said consumer law expert Mike Daniel of Resolve
Litigation.

"There is probably an advantage in bringing your claim against two
parties," Mr. Daniel said.  "You make more of a nuisance of
yourself."

Some owners who have tried to pursue Ford through a tribunal have
been told they've run out of time.  Mr. Daniel said the deadline
for filing can be as little as three years from the purchase date.
The ACL says the clock starts "when you become aware, or ought
reasonably to have become aware of the problem".

Mr. Daniel said even after three years it was not the end of the
road: "You could bring a claim in the local court which has a six-
year statute of limitations."

The Consumer Action Law Centre said the time limit on legal action
depended on what your legal claim was -- for a breach of consumer
guarantees by the manufacturer under the ACL, it would be three
years.

"In Victoria, an owner has six years from when the cause of action
arose to bring an action against the car yard in VCAT," a Consumer
Action lawyer said.

If VCAT finds in the Letchers favor they will be entitled to a
refund.

Today, Public Defender offers a step-by-step guide to pursuing a
refund from Ford.  About 70,000 people have bought the 2011-16
vehicles that are allegedly of unacceptable quality.


GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over Drivers' Contractor Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amina Elahi, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a new
federal lawsuit claims Grubhub misclassified its delivery drivers
as independent contractors across the country, the latest salvo in
a legal battle that has spread across the gig economy.

The Chicago-based food ordering and delivery company is also
involved in a similar federal case in California that was filed
last September.  Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, of
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, is representing plaintiffs in both cases
against Grubhub.

Ms. Liss-Riordan recently settled a case with gig economy giant
Uber for up to $100 million over alleged worker misclassification,
representing about 385,000 drivers in California and
Massachusetts.  She has also represented workers in cases against
Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash and others.

"In recent years, there have been a number of companies that call
themselves part of the on-demand economy . . . that dispatch their
workforce using an app," Ms. Liss-Riordan said.  "They somehow
think that using an app to dispatch their workers allows them to
avoid all the responsibilities of being an employer."

Ms. Liss-Riordan said she has noticed more sharing economy
companies choosing to classify their workers as employees rather
than independent contractors, like Instacart, Shyp, Luxe Valey,
Munchery, Eden and Honor.

The new suit seeks class-action status.  Ms. Liss-Riordan said she
doesn't know the potential size of the Grubhub class, which could
include drivers from all over the U.S. excluding California, but
that she expects there could be tens of thousands of them.

The cost to Grubhub, she said, could be "quite substantial" --
though she doesn't expect the case to match the scale of the Uber
case.

Six plaintiffs from Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New York and
Connecticut alleged that they were treated as employees by Grubhub
but denied overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours a
week.  They also said they didn't make minimum wage when they
factored in the cost of fuel; the cost of owning, leasing and
maintaining vehicles; and the cost of cellular data.

"Grubhub has misclassified its delivery drivers as independent
contractors and, in so doing, has committed wage and hour
violations under a variety of federal and state statutes," the
plaintiffs' lawyers wrote in a complaint, which was filed on
June 28 in the U.S. District Court's Northern Illinois District.

The suit requests permission to notify other Grubhub delivery
drivers of the class action, compensation including all wages
owed, costs and attorney's fees and an order that Grubhub comply
with the Fair Labor Standard Act and appropriate state labor laws.

Plaintiff Thomas Souran, of Chicago, alleged he was mistreated by
Grubhub while he was driving for them from December 2014 until
August 2015.  He said Grubhub should have paid overtime and
expenses; that he was bitten by a dog while delivering, wasn't
covered by insurance and lost several days of work; and that he
was forced out of a contract and terminated without notice.

"Grubhub treated the drivers as outsiders, while they used
corporate money (shareholder money) to throw parties, buy lunch
and dinner for all employees and the drivers were the ones that
were out in the cold and heat delivering and making it happen,"
Mr. Souran told Blue Sky Innovation in an email.

Mr. Souran said he hopes all of Grubhub's independent contractors
will be reclassified as employees and that the company will pay
overtime and expenses.

Grubhub declined to comment specifically on the lawsuit, citing
company policy against talking about pending litigation.  However,
in an emailed statement, a company spokeswoman said Grubhub works
"around the lives of our delivery drivers."

"We believe that the delivery partners who decide to contract with
Grubhub value the ability to earn income while enjoying the
freedom of a flexible work schedule," the statement said.
"Additionally, while our delivery business is rapidly growing --
we're currently in 50 markets -- most restaurants on the Grubhub
platform manage their own delivery operations."


HALYARD HEALTH: "Jackson" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Ronald Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy,
Steven E. Voskuil, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Thomas J. Falk and
Mark A. Buthman, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05093 (S,D, N.Y.,
June 28, 2016), seeks damages, reasonable attorney and expert fees
and other costs and such other and further relief for violation of
the Securities Exchange Act.

Halyard Health is a spin off of Kimberly-Clark, a manufacturer of
personal care, consumer tissue, and professional products. It
provides health and healthcare supplies and solutions worldwide
through healthcare providers and third-party distribution
channels.

Defendants failed to disclose that its MICROCOOL surgical gowns
consistently failed effectiveness tests and failed to meet
industry standards and knowingly provided defective MICROCOOL
surgical gowns to U.S. workers during the Ebola crisis. Its
surgical gowns were allegedly prone to leaks.

On this news, Halyard stock fell $1.21, or 4.3%, to close at
$26.95 on May 2, 2016. Plaintiff currently owns common stock of
Halyard and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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


HHGREGG INC: Oral Argument Held June 29 in Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
hhgregg, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has completed the
appeal briefing process and oral argument was scheduled for June
29, 2016.

The Company is the defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned,
Dwain Underwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gregg Appliances, Inc. and hhgregg, Inc., filed in the
Superior Court in Marion County, Indiana, where a former employee
alleged that the Company breached a contract by failing to
correctly calculate his (and other class members) incentive bonus.
On July 9, 2014, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification, and on July 17, 2015, the judge granted the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, although no finding on
damages was made.

The Company's interlocutory appeal was accepted on October 23,
2015. The Company has completed the appeal briefing process and
oral argument was scheduled for June 29, 2016.

If the Company does not ultimately prevail in this case, the
potential liability is approximately $2.4 million based on those
individuals included in the class, excluding potential interest
and other fees which cannot be determined at this time. The
Company believes the loss is not probable, and thus, as of March
31, 2016, a liability has not been recorded for this matter.


HOME DEPOT: U.S. Financial Institution Class Actions Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2016, that the U.S. financial
institution class actions remain ongoing.

The Company said, "In fiscal 2015, the four major payment card
networks made claims against the Company for costs that they
assert they or their issuing banks incurred in connection with the
Data Breach. The Company entered into settlement agreements with
all four networks in fiscal 2015. In addition, a total of 57
putative class actions were filed in the U.S. on behalf of
customers and financial institutions and in Canada on behalf of
customers allegedly harmed by the Data Breach. The U.S. class
actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(the "District Court"). In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015, the
Company agreed in principle to settlement terms that will resolve
and dismiss the claims asserted in the U.S. customer class
actions, and in the first quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company
agreed in principle to settlement terms that will resolve and
dismiss claims asserted in the Canadian customer class actions.
Both settlements are subject to final approval by the respective
courts. The U.S. financial institution class actions remain
ongoing."


HP INC: Oral Argument Held in Cement & Concrete Suit
----------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2016, that oral argument has been scheduled for
July 7, 2016, in a class action lawsuit.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct
("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was
serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that
period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior
in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP.

On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September
9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9,
2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
October 24, 2013.

On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant
filed its opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. HP filed its answering brief on January 16,
2015 and the plaintiff-appellant's reply brief was filed on March
2, 2015. Oral argument has been scheduled for July 7, 2016.


IBIO INC: Settlement Funded by Insurance Carrier
------------------------------------------------
iBio, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement in a class action
lawsuit has been funded by the Company's insurance carrier.

On October 24, 2014, a putative class action captioned Juan Pena,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
iBio, Inc. and Robert B. Kay was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. The action alleged
that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer made certain
statements in violation of federal securities laws and sought an
unspecified amount of damages. On February 23, 2015, the Court
issued an order appointing a new lead plaintiff. On April 6, 2015,
the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint in the same
matter captioned Vamsi Andavarapu, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Situated v. iBio, Inc., Robert B. Kay, and Robert
Erwin. The action alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, and its President made certain statements in violation of
federal securities laws and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

On May 6, 2015, the Company, Mr. Kay, and Mr. Erwin filed a motion
to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On September 15,
2015, after voluntary mediation, the Plaintiffs and the Company
reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action.  On
December 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs and the Company entered a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that provides, among other
things, for settlement payments totaling $1,875,000 in exchange
for the releases described therein.  That stipulation was filed
with the Court on December 18, 2015 and, on April 21, 2016, the
Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement
and dismissing the case. The settlement has been funded by the
Company's insurance carrier.


INCH CONSTRUCTION: James Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WOODLEY & KEVIN DEAN, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INCH CONSTRUCTION INC. and
JOSEPH GREEN, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 16213-A
(Mass. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks and award for the value
of all unpaid wages for compensable working time, including Off-
the-clock work, non-discretionary treble damages and attorney
fees, damages as a result of the retaliatory termination, and any
other relief as the law and justice requires, including interest
and costs.

The Plaintiff alleges that they were required to work certain off-
the-clock, hours for zero dollars in wages. The Plaintiff and
those similarly situated allege that the Defendant's unlawful and
inexplicable failure to furnish earned wages for each and every
hour actually worked is a violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act,
and each member is entitled to all compensation not properly
remitted, non-discretionary treble damages, and an award of
attorney's fees.

Inch Construction is a heavy construction equipment rental
business in Dedham, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Bace, Esq.
          BACE LAW GROUP. LLC
          PO Box 93 16
          Boston. MA 02114
          Telephone: (508) 922 8328
          E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com


INOVALON HOLDINGS: "Patel" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
Jyotindra Patel and Smita Patel, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc.,
Keith R. Dunleavy, Thomas R. Kloster, Denise K. Fletcher, Andre S.
Hoffmann, Lee D. Roberts, William J. Teuber Jr., Goldman Sachs &
Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, UBS
Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co.
Incorporated, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC and William Blair &
Company, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05065 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 28, 2016), seeks damages, interest, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and
expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and
such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities Act
of 1933.

Inovalon provides cloud-based data analytics platforms for health
insurance plans, pharmaceutical companies, researchers and others
in the healthcare industry. During its IPO, their Registration
Statement failed to disclose the substantial revenues the Company
derived from sales in the City of New York and the State of New
York, considering substantial corporate tax reforms that had
significantly increased Inovalon's purportedly 39% effective tax
rate to 43% and thus negatively impacted Inovalon's then current
and future financial results.

Plaintiffs purchased Inovalon shares traceable to the IPO and lost
substantially.

Denise K. Fletcher, Andre S. Hoffmann, Lee D. Roberts and William
J. Teuber Jr. were, at the time of the IPO, members of Inovalon's
Board of Directors.

Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated,
UBS Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co.
Incorporated, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC and William Blair &
Company, L.L.C. were underwrites of the IPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

            - and -

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


IRON MOUNTAIN: Court Dismissed Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Iron Mountain Incorporated said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, that a
Court has approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal entered
into by the parties, which dismissed a class action as moot.

On September 28, 2015, a purported stockholder of Iron Mountain
Incorporated, or Iron Mountain, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or
the Court, captioned Shurnicki v. Iron Mountain, Inc. et al., C.A.
No. 11549-CB, or the Action. The complaint named as defendants
Iron Mountain and the members of its board of directors. The
complaint alleged that the Iron Mountain directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose certain material
information in the Iron Mountain Preliminary Schedule 14A relating
to Iron Mountain's proposed acquisition of Recall Holdings, Ltd.,
or the Transaction. The lawsuit sought, among other relief, a
preliminary injunction and recovery of the costs of the action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

On October 13, 2015, plaintiff's counsel and defendants' counsel
executed a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, memorializing the
terms of an agreement in principle pursuant to which Iron Mountain
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the
Transaction in its Definitive Schedule 14A, or Definitive 14A, and
plaintiff agreed to dismissal of the Action with prejudice and the
release of certain claims. On October 14, 2015, Iron Mountain
filed its Definitive 14A with the supplemental disclosures with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 28, 2016, following a series of rulings by the Court in
other actions challenging mergers, plaintiff and defendants agreed
to supersede and replace the MOU with an agreement that plaintiff
would voluntarily dismiss the Action on the basis that it was
mooted by the supplemental disclosures contained in the Definitive
14A. After determining to replace the MOU with an agreement that
plaintiff would voluntarily dismiss the action, plaintiff's
counsel and defendants' counsel engaged in arm's-length
discussions regarding the payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses to plaintiff's counsel. Iron Mountain
has agreed to pay plaintiff's counsel a fee of $195,000 and to
reimburse plaintiff's counsel for expenses of no more than $5,000,
for a total payment to plaintiff's counsel of no more than
$200,000.

On June 1, 2016, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order of
Dismissal entered into by the parties, which dismissed the Action
as moot, and dismissed the claims asserted in the Action with
prejudice as to the named plaintiff Roberta Shurnicki and without
prejudice as to the other members of the purported class. The
Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on,
the payment or amount of the agreed-upon fee to plaintiff's
counsel or its reasonableness.


ITC HOLDINGS: Bid for Summary Disposition in Merger Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2016, that a court
has denied a motion for summary disposition filed by ITC and ITC's
board of directors in a class action lawsuit.

On February 9, 2016, ITC Holdings Corp. ("ITC") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended or modified from time to
time, the "Merger Agreement") with Fortis Inc. ("Ultimate
Parent"), FortisUS Inc. ("Parent") and Element Acquisition Sub
Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject
to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into ITC (the "Merger"), with ITC continuing as
the surviving corporation and a subsidiary of Parent.

As disclosed in ITC's definitive proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 16, 2016 (as
amended or supplemented from time to time, the "proxy
statement/prospectus"), purported shareholders of ITC have
initiated legal actions challenging the Merger.

The plaintiffs in the Guerra, Mehrotra, and Severance actions have
sought voluntary dismissal of their claims and alerted the federal
court that, rather than proceed with litigation, they will seek a
"mootness fee" for certain of the supplemental disclosures. ITC
intends to oppose any application for fees submitted by the
plaintiffs.

On March 4, 2016, an action captioned Alan Poland v. Fortis Inc.,
et al., No. 2016-151852-CB was filed in the Oakland County Circuit
Court of the State of Michigan (the "Poland Action"). The
complaint names as defendants a combination of ITC and the
individual members of the ITC board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS
and Merger Sub. The complaint generally alleges, among other
things, that (i) ITC's directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the Merger Agreement (including, but not
limited to, various alleged breaches of duties of good faith,
loyalty, care and independence), (ii) ITC's directors failed to
take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder value and claims
that the Merger Agreement contains several deal protection
provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (iii) a
combination of Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks
class action certification and a variety of relief including,
among other things, enjoining defendants from completing the
proposed Merger, unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages,
and costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 23, 2016, the state court entered an order directing that
related cases be consolidated with the Poland Action under the
caption In re ITC Holdings Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On
April 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
Merger Sub and FortisUS as defendants and naming ITC as nominal
defendant. The amended complaint asserts the same general
allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the original
complaint, but also alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus is
allegedly materially misleading and allegedly omits material facts
that are necessary to render it non-misleading and also purports
to assert claims derivatively on behalf of ITC.

On May 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction.

On June 8, 2016, the Court denied a motion for summary disposition
filed by ITC and ITC's board of directors.

ITC believes that no further disclosure is required to supplement
the definitive proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk that the Poland Action may delay or
otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the proposed Merger
and to minimize the expense of defending such action, ITC wishes
to voluntarily make supplemental disclosures related to the
proposed Merger, which are set forth below, in response to certain
of the allegations. Nothing in these supplemental disclosures
shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality
under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth.

ITC and the other named defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were
alleged in the Poland Action.


ITC HOLDINGS: Deal Reached in Guerra, Mehrotra & Severance Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2016, that
plaintiffs and defendants in the Guerra, Mehrotra and Severance
actions have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
actions and release the defendants from all claims relating to the
Merger, subject to approval of the Court.  ITC continues to
believe that

On February 9, 2016, ITC Holdings Corp ("ITC") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended or modified from time to
time, the "Merger Agreement") with Fortis Inc. ("Ultimate
Parent"), FortisUS Inc. ("Parent") and Element Acquisition Sub
Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject
to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into ITC (the "Merger"), with ITC continuing as
the surviving corporation and a subsidiary of Parent. ITC is
supplementing its disclosure regarding the Merger in connection
with a proposed settlement of three of the four litigations
brought by purported stockholders of ITC. Nothing in this Current
Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal
necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein. ITC and the other named defendants
continue to deny any wrongdoing alleged in all such litigation.

As disclosed in ITC's definitive proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016 (as amended or
supplemented from time to time, the "proxy statement/prospectus"),
purported stockholders of ITC have initiated legal actions
challenging the Merger.

On February 26, 2016, an action captioned Paolo Guerra v. Albert
Ernst, et al., No. 2016-151709-CB was filed in the Oakland County
Circuit Court of the State of Michigan.  The complaint names as
defendants a combination of ITC and the individual members of the
ITC board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub.  The
complaint generally alleges, among other things, that (i) ITC's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger agreement (including, but not limited to, various alleged
breaches of duties of good faith, loyalty, care and independence),
(ii) ITC's directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize
shareholder value and claims that the merger agreement contains
several deal protection provisions that are unnecessarily
preclusive and (iii) a combination of Fortis, FortisUS and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints seek class action certification and a variety of
relief including, among other things, enjoining defendants from
completing the proposed merger transaction, unspecified rescissory
and compensatory damages, and costs, including attorneys' fees and
expenses.  On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was
dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (the "Court"), as
Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al., No 2:16-cv-10914.  The
federal complaint names the same defendants, asserts the same
general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the
state court case.  On March 25, 2016, Guerra amended his federal
complaint.  The amended complaint drops FortisUS, Fortis and
Merger Sub as defendants and adds claims alleging that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 because the proxy statement/prospectus is
allegedly materially misleading and allegedly omits material facts
that are necessary to render it non-misleading.

On March 29, 2016, an action captioned Mehrotra v. Welch, et. al.,
No. 2016-152233-CB was filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court
of the State of Michigan naming the individual members of the ITC
board of directors, FortisUS and Merger Sub as defendants and
asserting the same general allegations and seeking the same types
of relief as the other state court actions.  On April 22, 2016,
the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed and refiled in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as
Mehrotra v. Welch, et al., No. 2:16-cv-11449.  The federal
complaint names the same defendants, asserts the same general
allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the state
court case.

On April 8, 2016, an action captioned Harold Severance v. Joseph
L. Welch, et. al., No. 2:16-cv-11293 was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by the
purported shareholder who had previously sent a demand letter to
ITC's board of directors on March 8, 2016.  The complaint, which
purports to bring claims both directly on behalf of the class and
derivatively on behalf of ITC, names the individual members of
ITC's board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub as
defendants and ITC as nominal defendant, and asserts the same
general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the
Guerra federal court action.

Plaintiffs and defendants in these three actions have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the actions and release the
defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to
approval of the Court.  ITC continues to believe that the Guerra,
Mehrotra and Severance Actions are without merit and that no
further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy
statement/prospectus under applicable laws.  However, to eliminate
the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, ITC has determined
to make certain supplemental disclosures to the proxy
statement/prospectus as set forth below.  Nothing in these
supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal
necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth.

ITC and the other named defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were
alleged in these Actions.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 8 Final Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, that
a Court has scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the
proposed class action settlement on September 8, 2016.

On May 23, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (the "Court") issued an order preliminarily approving
the previously announced agreement with the lead plaintiff to
settle the purported securities class action litigation, styled In
re: Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, pending
against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company" or
"Intercept") and certain of its officers.

The Court ordered that notice be provided to the class and
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, including the
payment of $55 million, of which $10 million will be funded by the
Company's insurers. This settlement payment is expected to be paid
into escrow by June 7, 2016, with distribution to the class to
occur after the Court has finally approved the settlement and a
plan of allocation of those proceeds. It is anticipated that the
settlement will not have a material impact on Intercept's
business.

Under the proposed settlement, the defendants do not admit to any
liability. The defendants also continue to deny all allegations
against them and to maintain that the suit has no merit.

The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of
the proposed settlement on September 8, 2016. Prior to the
hearing, notice will be sent to class member with information
regarding the terms of the settlement, the plan for allocation and
distribution of the settlement funds and claim procedures.


JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------
ANN ARBOR CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself
and all other similarly situated stockholders of DREAMWORKS
ANIMATION SKG, INC., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY KATZENBERG, the
Defendant, Case No. 12507 (Del. Chancery Ct., June 27, 2016),
seeks to recover damages caused by Jeffrey Katzenberg for
breaching his fiduciary duties as the Company's controlling
stockholder; breach of contract; and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

DreamWorks is a studio that creates family entertainment,
including animated feature films, television series and specials,
live entertainment properties and related consumer products.
Katzenberg owns 100% of DreamWorks' supervoting Class B common
stock (Class B Stock), which provides him with approximately 60%
of the Company's total voting power.

The complaint notes that as purported consideration for his role
with the post-closing company, Katzenberg will receive annual
consulting fees of $1 and a one-time grant of profits interests
granting him 7% of the profits from the JVs in perpetuity (Profit-
Sharing Arrangement and, together with the Consulting Agreement,
the Side Deal). The Profit-Sharing Arrangement is incredibly
valuable to Katzenberg. AwesomenessTV has quadrupled in value in
the last three years.

If AwesomenessTV continues along even a remotely similar
trajectory, Katzenberg will be entitled to a substantial amount of
cash pursuant to the Profit-Sharing Arrangement.

If DWA Nova realizes its potential, the Profit-Sharing Arrangement
only becomes more valuable. The Side Deal constitutes disguised
disparate merger consideration for Katzenberg.

The Profit-Sharing Arrangement -- which provides Katzenberg the
right to receive 7% of the JVs' profits in perpetuity -- is so
valuable that it cannot credibly be characterized as compensation
for a two-year consulting contract.

Instead, the Profit-Sharing Arrangement is akin to an equity
rollover into two of DreamWorks' most promising units without any
of the downside risk typically associated with equity rollovers
because Katzenberg also received $41 per share cash for all of his
DreamWorks shares. The Side Deal violates the equivalent
consideration provision in DreamWorks' certificate of
incorporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Joseph Christensen, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622 7000

              - and -

          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          Spencer Oster, Esq.
          David Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          240 East 79th Street, Suite A
          New York, NY 10075
          Telephone: (888) 529 1108


KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Reached Settlement in Capacitor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that on May 2, 2016, NEC TOKIN reached
a preliminary settlement in two antitrust suits pending in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California as
In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (the
"Class Action Suits"). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, in
consideration of the release of NEC TOKIN and its subsidiaries
(including NEC TOKIN America, Inc.) from claims asserted in the
Class Action Suits, NEC TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.3 million
to a settlement class of direct purchasers of capacitors and a
settlement class of indirect purchasers of capacitors. Payments
will be made in installments, with the initial installment being
due shortly after the execution of the definitive settlement
agreement, subsequent payments due each year thereafter for three
years, and a final, fifth payment due by December 31, 2019.


KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 12 Preliminary Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ltd. said in its Form F-1
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 20, 2016, that a preliminary hearing in a class
action lawsuit was scheduled by the court for September 12, 2016.

The Company said, "On December 3, 2015, we announced that we
received a lawsuit and motion to approve the lawsuit as a class
action lawsuit pursuant to the Class Action Lawsuits Law 5766-2006
(the "Motion") which was filed against us and our directors at the
Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division). The Motion is with
respect to asserted claims for damages to the holders of our
securities listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, arising due to
the public offering of our initial public offering of our
securities in the U.S. during November 2015."

"In the Motion it was claimed that the class the petitioners are
seeking to represent, namely, anyone holding our shares at the
start of trading on November 22, 2015 exclusive of the respondents
and/or anyone acting on their behalf and/or any affiliates thereof
and excluding anyone whose rights to our shares derive from ADS
certificates issued in the U.S to such extent as derived
therefrom; and any holders of our Series 2 TASE listed warrants as
of the start of trading on November 22, 2015, exclusive of the
respondents and/or anyone acting on their behalf and/or any
affiliates thereof (Purported Class). The total amount claimed
from all defendants, if the Motion is certified as a class action,
as set forth in the motion is approximately NIS 16.4 million.

"In addition to this amount, the petitioners in the motion are
seeking remedies in order to redress discrimination against the
Purported Class owing to the dilution caused by the public
offering, including the possibility that the Purported Class
should be awarded from the Company amounts reflecting the losses
of the Purported Class from a possible price increase in the
shares of the Company following the announcement of the Phase III
clinical trial results.

"Under applicable Israeli law, a motion to approve a lawsuit as a
class action initially needs to be approved as such by the court.
Only after such approval is granted by the court, will the court
proceed to the second stage of hearing the underlying claims of
the class action lawsuit. We announced that we reject the claims
asserted in the Motion. We have delivered our response to the
court in accordance with applicable law, and a preliminary hearing
was scheduled by the court for September 12, 2016.

"We have been advised by our attorneys that the likelihood of the
Company not incurring any financial obligation as a result of the
class action exceeds the likelihood that the Company will incur a
financial obligation. At this preliminary stage however, we are
unable, with any degree of certainty, to make any other
evaluations or any other assessments with respect to the Motion's
probability of success or the scope of potential exposure, if
any."


KOHLS CORPORATION: 19 TCPA Suits Consolidated in MDL 2736
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ankcorn seeks transfer and consolidation of 19 suits filed
against Kohl's Corporation for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on June 28, 2016, MDL No. 2736.

The cases are: Putative Class Actions: Ankcorn v. Kohl's
Corporation, No. 15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill.), Spencer v. Kohl's
Department Stores, Inc., No. 14-cv-01646 (D. Nev.), Winner &
Jennings v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-01541 (E.D.
Pa.), Bawgus v. Kohl's, Department Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv-00283
(E.D. Tn.), Beaty v. Kohl's Department Stores Inc, No. 16-cv-00164
(E.D. Wis.), Buzan et al. v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No.
16-cv-00180 (E.D. Tex.), Cash v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.,
No. 15-cv-02456 (E.D. Ca.), Cook v. Kohl's Department Stores,
Inc., No. 16-cv-00108 (M.D. Pa.), Douglas v. Kohl's Department
Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv-01185 (M.D. Fla.), Hernandez v. Kohl's
Department Stores Inc, No. 15-cv-01180 (E.D. Wis.), Humphrey v.
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-00812 (M.D. Fla.),
Larsen v. Capital One Bank, N.A. and Kohl's Department Stores,
Inc., No. 15-cv-04510 (D. Min.), Levin v. Capital One Financial
Corporation and Kohl's Corporation, No. 16-cv-03580 (D.N.J.), Case
MDL No. 2736, Manning v. Kohl's Dept Stores, Inc, No. 16-cv-00315
(D. Con.), Maslaton v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-
01663 (D.N.J.), McFadden v. Kohl's Corporation, No. 16-cv-01763
(E.D. Pa.), Montalbo v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv-
00482 (M.D. Fla.), Pritchard v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.,
No. 16-cv-01049 (M.D. Fla.), Simmons v. Kohl's Department Stores
Inc, No. 16-cv-00150 (N.D. Fla.).

Ankcorn is represented by:

      G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
      6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Tel: (323) 940-1700
      Email: tom@mblawapc.com
             nick@mblawapc.com


L.F. DONNELL INC: "Fisher" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN FISHER, 425 Garden Valley Drive, Boardman, Ohio 44512
Plaintiff, v. DAVID A. FLYNN, INC., c/o Its Statutory Agent
2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth Street, Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44114, DAVID A. FLYNN HOLDINGS, LLC, c/o Its
Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth
Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH 44114, DAVID A. FLYNN, c/o David
A. Flynn, Inc., c/o Its Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio Service
Corp., 1360 East Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH 44114,
L.F. DONNELL INC., dba Donnell Auto Group and Donnell Ford, c/o
Its Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth
Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH 44114, - and - JOHN DOE I,
c/o David A. Flynn, Inc., c/o Its Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio
Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH
44114 - and - JOHN DOE II, c/o David A. Flynn, Inc., c/o Its
Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth
Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH 44114, Defendants, Case: 4:16-cv-
01681-BYP (N.D. Ohio, June 30, 2016), alleges violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

L F Donnell Inc. is a tire store in Youngstown, OH, offering tires
for sale, tire repair, and auto services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
     Allen C. Tittle, Esq.
     TITTLE LAW, LLC
     2012 West 25th Street, Ste. 515
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-308-1522
     E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
             tittle@tittlelawfirm.com

        - and -

     Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
     46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
     Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
     Phone: 440-973-9000
     E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


LINCOLN-WAY NORTH: Bond Investors Urged to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Sarver, writing for mysuburbanlife.com, reports that an
investors rights law firm is encouraging those who purchased
Lincoln-Way District 210 bonds to join a class action lawsuit to
recover their losses.

The Rosen Law firm announced June 20 it is investigating potential
securities claims on behalf of investors of District 210 bonds
after allegations surfaced that "materially misleading business
information may have been issued to the investing public."

The firm, which has offices in New York City, Los Angeles and
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, is asking investors of District 210's
Series 2013A bonds and Series 2013B bonds to join the lawsuit.

Superintendent Scott Tingley could not be reached on June 29.  An
email to board President Dee Molinare was not returned.

Phillip Kim, a Rosen Law partner, said no investors have signed on
thus far but it's still early.  He didn't have a timeline for when
the lawsuit could happen.  The law firm's website lists Aug. 31 as
the registration deadline for investors.

"We'll have to wait and see," he said.

District 210 is being investigated by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission to determine if any federal securities laws
have been violated.

The district has also received a federal subpoena for various
documents regarding its former superintendent, Lawrence Wyllie,
and the board.  The Frankfort Square Park District received a
federal subpoena on the controversial Superdog training facility
operated at Lincoln-Way North High School.

The SEC investigation follows an agreed-upon procedures report on
bond proceeds, which showed improper accounting practices, as well
as fund transfer issues that will require the district to increase
its borrowing by $5 million to fix the matter.

In April, the board acknowledged that a "proper system of checks
and balances was not in place" and that Wyllie took unauthorized
action.

Rosen Law cites the downgrading of District 210's debt by Moody's
and the SEC investigation in its announcement of the potential
lawsuit.

Because of its crippling financial problems, the board agreed last
August to shut down Lincoln-Way North.

The controversial decision caused residents -- the majority of
whom were North parents -- to file a lawsuit against the district
to keep the school open.  A Will County judge dismissed the
lawsuit in June after a roughly five-month legal fight.


LOGMEIN INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Discontinued Free App
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq., of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reports that a judge in the Eastern District
of California recently dismissed a class action filed against
LogMeIn based on the company's decision to terminate its free app,
which allowed users to access a remote desktop computer via a
virtual private network.  Handy v. LogMeIn, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-01355-JLT (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2016).  The court held that
Plaintiff failed to show that LogMeIn misrepresented the
discontinuance of the free app or that it misled users into
believing that the free app and paid subscription were "companion
products" such that discontinuation of the app made the other
products less valuable.

LogMeIn's Products. LogMeIn offered a free app, as well as a
second product, Ignition, which allowed users access to the app
using a table or smartphone for a one-time fee of $29.99.  In
2014, LogMeIn notified users of the free app and Ignition that it
would no longer offer the free product and was planning to migrate
all users to a paid subscription service, which offered a few
extra amenities.  Plaintiff -- a user of the free app and
purchaser of Ignition -- brought suit under California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL), alleging
that the company failed to properly notify users that it would
discontinue its products and that, had he known LogMeIn would do
so, he would not have purchased Ignition.

LogMeIn filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims and a motion
for summary judgment.  Since the court considered evidence outside
the pleadings, it applied summary judgment standards and ruled in
favor of LogMeIn.

Failure to Identify Any Affirmative Misrepresentation. The court
found that Plaintiff claimed the following: (1) LogMeIn led
consumers to believe that the free app was being discontinued and
that users had to pay for an annual subscription if they wanted to
use the services provided by the app; and (2) LogMeIn led users to
believe that the free app and the paid subscription were
"companion services" and failed to inform users that the
discontinuation of the free app would make the subscription app
less valuable.  The court rejected both theories.

First, the court held that LogMeIn did not misrepresent its
intention to discontinue its free app and the Ignition product.
LogMeIn explained its migration plan and offered consumers a
six-month free subscription to the new subscription-based service.
It further explained that, regardless of whether users accepted
the complementary subscription, they could continue to use
Ignition until it was discontinued.  This is exactly what
Plaintiff did: he continued to use the Ignition product throughout
2014 and 2015.  Because Plaintiff was not "tricked" by LogMeIn's
statement and did not buy the new subscription-based product
because of any alleged misrepresentation, he could not base a
claim on this statement.  The court noted:

While he may be outraged by what he feels occurred to others, the
Court is not clear why he believed that this outrage makes him
aggrieved such that he can vindicate this grievance in this
litigation.

Second, the court held that Plaintiff failed to show that the free
app and Ignition were "companion services" such that Ignition was
less valuable without the free app.  It noted that Plaintiff used
the free app for more than a year before buying Ignition and then
used Ignition for more than a year after the free app had been
discontinued. The products, therefore, were not dependent on one
another.

Takeaway. Fraud-based claims under the UCL and FAL are subject to
heightened pleading requirements.  Plaintiffs must allege reliance
on specific statements and injury in fact as a result. Courts are
increasingly dismissing claims that fail to allege such
individualized reliance and injury.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2016,
that the Companyt and the other defendants have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the lead plaintiffs to
memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated
securities class action captioned In re Lumber Liquidators
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company previously disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 (the "Form 10-Q"), that
on April 27, 2016, it and the other defendants (the "Securities
Class Action Defendants") had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "Securities Class Action MOU") with the lead
plaintiffs to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated securities class action captioned In re Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Securities
Class Action Litigation").

Under the terms of the Securities Class Action MOU, the Company
will contribute $26.0 million to a settlement fund (the
"Securities Class Action Fund") that will be used to compensate
individuals who purchased the Company's shares during the period
from February 22, 2012 to February 27, 2015. In addition, under
the terms of the Securities Class Action MOU, the Company will
issue 1 million shares of its common stock to the Securities Class
Action Fund with a value of approximately $16.0 million based on
the $16.02 closing price of the Company's common stock on April
27, 2016.

On May 17, 2016, the Company and the defendants (collectively, the
"Derivative Defendants") entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding dated as of May 16, 2016 (the "Derivative MOU") with
the plaintiff's representatives to memorialize an agreement in
principle to settle the derivative litigation matter described in
the Form 10-Q and captioned In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings,
Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation (the "Derivative Litigation
Matter").



The Derivative MOU provides for the Company's insurance carriers
to pay $26.0 million to the Company and for the Company to
contribute all of these insurance proceeds into the Securities
Class Action Fund. The Derivative Defendants will agree that the
Company will not use any cash, other than these insurance
proceeds, to resolve the Securities Class Action Litigation. The
Company will pay the lead plaintiffs in the Derivative Litigation
Matter legal fees of $5.0 million and expects to fund half of this
amount from insurance proceeds. The Derivative MOU also provides
for a process by which the Company will add a new member to the
Board of Directors for one term and for the Company to make
certain corporate governance changes such as, among other things,
the adoption of a modified plurality voting policy for directors,
stock holding guidelines, a clawback policy and a policy on
lobbying and political contributions, and the creation of a
regulatory affairs committee of the Board.

The Company previously disclosed in the Form 10-Q that it had
determined a probable loss had been incurred relating to the
Securities Class Action Litigation and recognized a net charge to
earnings of approximately $16.0 million within selling general and
administrative expense in the first quarter of 2016. This expense
was comprised of the loss contingency of approximately $42.0
million ($26.0 million cash and $16.0 common stock), net of
expected insurance proceeds of approximately $26.0 million. The
amount of loss associated with an issuance of shares of common
stock will be determined based on the trading value of the shares
on the date of issuance, which could increase the recognized loss
if the trading value increases or result in a gain if the trading
value decreases. While it is reasonably possible that the Company
may incur a loss greater than the recognized amounts, the Company
is unable to determine a range of possible losses greater than the
amount recognized.

The Company also disclosed in the Form 10-Q that it had recorded
$2.5 million ($5.0 million minus $2.5 million of expected
insurance proceeds) in connection with the Derivative Litigation
Matter within other current liabilities and selling, general and
administrative expenses in the first quarter of 2016. The Company
does not expect to record an additional loss relating to the
Derivative Litigation Matter.

Both the Securities Class Action MOU and the Derivative MOU are
dependent on each other and are subject to the execution of
definitive settlement agreements, court approvals and other
contingencies. Therefore, there can be no assurance that a
settlement will be finalized by the parties and approved by the
courts or as to the ultimate outcome of the Securities Class
Action Litigation or the Derivative Litigation Matter.


MASSACHUSETTS: Four Bridgewater Staff Banned Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Ransom, writing for Boston Globe, reports that four workers at
Bridgewater State Hospital have been banned from all Department of
Correction facilities during an investigation into the April
suicide of a Bridgewater patient, according to officials.

Leo Marino, a 43-year-old father, died April 8 after swallowing
wads of toilet paper that had been given to him by Bridgewater's
staff, despite the fact he had tried to kill himself the same way
a day before.

According to an investigation by the Disability Law Center, a
federally funded watchdog group, several specially trained
observers gave Mr. Marino "[an] arm's length or more of toilet
paper seven times" within his final hour of life.

Mr. Marino was to have around-the-clock supervision, which
included a trained observer stationed outside his cell and
correction officers monitoring live video of the inside of his
cell, according to the report, released on June 27.

The four workers who are the subject of the "administrative
separation" are contract employees and are not subject to
disciplinary action by the Department of Correction, according to
spokesman Christopher Fallon.  All are trained observers who were
"involved at some point with monitoring Mr. Marino," Mr. Fallon
said.

The agency's investigation is ongoing, and no other staff have
been disciplined, Mr. Fallon said.

"The Department of Correction recognizes the challenges at
Bridgewater State Hospital, we are working on a strategy to ensure
the quality of care and level of safety patients at Bridgewater
receive matches what patients would receive at any mental health
facility," Mr. Fallon said on June 29 in a statement.

Roderick MacLeish Jr., an attorney representing Bridgewater
patients in a class-action lawsuit, called the suicide "a failure
of multiple levels."

"This was a loaded gun they handed to him," Mr. MacLeish said.
"The [correction officers] and the specially trained observers
were facilitators."

An investigation by the Plymouth County district attorney's office
is ongoing.

Mr. Marino was committed to Bridgewater in January, after he was
found incompetent to stand trial on charges he assaulted his
fiancee.  His brother, Joe, said he tried to kill himself several
times at the Essex County Correctional Facility prior to being
transferred to Bridgewater for an evaluation.  In the weeks before
his death, Mr. Marino, in the Intensive Treatment Unit, tried to
commit suicide three times.  He slit his wrists, tried to hang
himself with a sheet, and swallowed wet toilet paper, according to
his family.

Bridgewater, a medium-security prison, is not licensed or
accredited as a hospital.  And while all patients have been
charged with a crime, most have not been convicted.  Many have
been sent to the facility for psychiatric evaluations.

The Disability Law Center's report was the second time in less
than two years that the organization urged state officials to give
the Department of Mental Health control of Bridgewater, where
between 2009 and 2013 three men died in the ITU while being placed
in four-point restraints, or after.

Following Mr. Marino's death, the Department of Correction said it
would install cameras.

In a letter to Mr. MacLeish, Bridgewater's supervising counsel
wrote that observers have received additional training, and new
briefings have been initiated to ensure staff are aware of a
patient's needs and restrictions.

Mr. MacLeish said the changes will not be enough.  "There were
ample opportunities to see what [Marino] was doing," he said.
"These people are dying, and it's totally preventable."


MEDIVATION INC: "Stewart" Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Stewart, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of Medivation, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Kim D.
Blickenstaff, Kathryn E. Falberg, David T. Hung, Michael L. King,
C. Patrick Machado, Dawn Svoronos, W. Anthony Vernon And Wendy L.
Yarno, Defendants, Case No. 12495 (Del. Ch., June 22, 2016), seeks
preliminary and permanent enjoinment, costs and disbursements of
this action, including attorney, accountant and expert fees and
such other and further relief for breach of fiduciary duties.

Plaintiff sought to remove the incumbent Medivation directors and
replace them with eight highly-qualified dissident director
candidates after being rebuffed in its attempt to negotiate a
consensual acquisition of Medivation by French pharmaceutical
company Sanofi S.A. where the consent revocation statement
contains material omissions.

Medivation is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 525 Market
Street, 36th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105. Medivation acquires,
develops and sells therapies to treat serious diseases for which
there are limited treatment options. Kim D. Blickenstaff, Kathryn
E. Falberg, David T. Hung, Michael L. King, C. Patrick Machado,
Dawn Svoronos, W. Anthony Vernon and Wendy L. Yarno are members of
the board of directors.

Plaintiff currently owns common stock of Medivation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
     Spencer Oster, Esq.
     David Tejtel, Esq.
     FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
     240 East 79th Street, Suite A
     New York, NY 10075
     Tel: (888) 529-1108

          - and -

     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     David M. Sborz, Esq.
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Tel: (302) 504-4957


MENTOR GRAPHICS: Robbins Geller  Appointed as Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak on July 11, 2016, entered an order
granting Movant Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension
Fund's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Selection of Counsel.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B), Western Pennsylvania Electrical
Employees Pension Fund is appointed as Lead Plaintiff, and,
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), the law firm of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is approved as Lead Counsel for
the putative class.

Mentor Graphics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a purported
securities class action lawsuit, Haroutunian v. Mentor Graphics.
was filed on March 18, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon against the company and three executive
officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. The
complaint alleges that the company and certain of our officers
made material misstatements and omissions in press releases, SEC
filings and analyst conference calls concerning the company's
business prospects and financial projections that artificially
inflated the price of the company's stock.

On April 22, 2016, a related shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon, Aransu v.
Rhines, against the company's board of directors at the time,
certain executive officers and the company as a nominal defendant.
The complaint alleges that the directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties to the company, were unjustly enriched,
wasted corporate assets and committed insider selling. The
shareholder derivative lawsuit generally alleges the same facts as
the securities class action.

"The complaints do not request a specific amount of damages and we
are unable to predict the outcome of these suits," the Company
said.


MERCHANT DATA: "Kinney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Katharine Kinney and Stephanie Turner, Plaintiffs, v. Merchant
Data Systems, Inc., a Nevada corporation authorized to do business
in the State of Florida, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22773-MGC
(S.D. Fla., June 28, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's
fees, costs and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Merchant Data Systems, Inc. operates as an electronic payment
processing company in the United States and Canada.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher J. Rush, Esq.
     CHRISTOPHER J. RUSH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Compson Financial Center, Suite 205
     1880 North Congress Avenue
     Boynton Beach, FL 33426
     Tel: 561-369-3331
     Fax: 561-369-5902)
     E-mail: crush@crushlawfl.com
             eservice@crushlawfl.com

            - and -

     Victoria Mesa-Estrada
     MESA-ESTRADA LAW, P.A.
     Compson Financial Ctr, Ste. 205
     1880 North Congress Avenue
     Boynton Beach, FL 33426
     Tel: 561-880-8062
     Fax: 561-828-8359
     E-mail: victoria@mesaestradalaw.com


MERCY HEALTH: Faces "Alban" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ALBAN, Individually and on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCY HEALTH, THE MERCY HEALTH
PARTNERS RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, AND JOHN DOES 1-20,
Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-00726-MRB (S.D. Ohio, June 30, 2016),
was brought on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of defined
benefit pension plan maintained by Mercy Health and operated as or
claimed to be a "Church Plan" under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Mercy Health is a Catholic health organization, supervising market
delivery systems consisting of hospitals, physician clinics, and
other organizations providing health-related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark W. Napier, Esq.
     FREKING MYERS & REUL LLC
     525 Vine Street, 6th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: 513/721-1975
     Fax: 513/651-2570
     E-mail: mnapier@fmr.law

        - and -

     Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
     Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
     GAINEY McKENNA & EGESTON
     440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212/983-1300
     Fax: 212/983-0383
     E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-aw.com


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Disability Advocates File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Small, writing for dnainfo, reports that disability
advocates have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the
MTA over its failure to make a Bronx subway stop accessible to
handicapped people during a recent $21.85 million renovation.

The suit was filed by the non-profit Disability Rights Advocates
and focuses on the 6 train's Middletown Road station, which was
closed between Oct. 5, 2013, and May 4, 2014, for extensive
upgrades that included replacing the floors, installing a fire
alarm system and replacing stairs, court papers say.

However, the MTA did not build elevators as part of this
renovation that would have enabled people with mobility
disabilities to use the station, even though doing so would have
been "technically feasible," according to the lawsuit.

This violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and amounts to
discrimination against the disabled, the suit says.

"This is not the first time that the MTA has spent millions of
dollars improving a subway station while ignoring the legal
mandate to simultaneously make it accessible," Disability Rights
Advocates Managing Attorney Michelle Caiola said in a statement,
"which is why New York City has one of the worst public
transportation systems for people with disabilities in the United
States."

Only 19 percent of subway stations in New York City are fully
accessible to people with disabilities, while 100 percent of
stations in Washington D.C. and the San Francisco Bay area, 74
percent of stations in Boston, 68 percent of stations in
Philadelphia and 67 percent of stations in Chicago are wheelchair-
accessible, according to Disability Rights Advocates.

The lack of wheelchair-accessible stations in New York includes a
4.4-mile stretch of 10 stops on the 6 train in The Bronx between
the Hunts Point Avenue and Pelham Bay Park stops that includes
Middletown Road, the lawsuit says.

Disability Rights Advocates filed the suit on behalf of Bronx
Independent Living Services and Disabled in Action of Metropolitan
New York, two groups that work to improve the lives of handicapped
people, as well as Bronxites Robert Hardy and Rodolfo Diaz, who
both have mobility disabilities.

Hardy and Diaz, who works for Bronx Independent Living Services,
would use the Middletown Road station if it were wheelchair-
accessible, but they rely on buses when traveling throughout the
borough instead because the system is more accessible than the
subway, according to the lawsuit.

"The buses, however, are a slower and less convenient method of
transportation than the subway," the suit reads.  "It often takes
up to two hours for Mr. Diaz to travel between destinations within
the Bronx for his work, using multiple buses."

Diaz said he lives nearby the Middletown Road station and would
prefer to take the train if he could, as it would be a faster way
to get around.

"That's one of the stations that's close to my house," he said,
"and it would be more convenient for me to actually take the train
that's close to my home."

The lawsuit was also brought on behalf of all disabled people who
would like to but cannot access the Middletown Road station.

The MTA maintained that building elevators at the Middletown Road
station was technically not feasible due to physical constraints,
meaning they are not violating the ADA, and stressed that
accessibility improvements like stair handrails and tactile signs
were part of the renovations.

The agency is committed to making 100 stations fully accessible by
2020, and all of its buses are currently wheelchair-accessible,
according to the MTA.

Although the suit asks for its plaintiffs to be awarded with
"reasonable attorneys' fees and costs," its main purpose is to
persuade the MTA to make the Middletown Road station accessible to
people with mobility disabilities.

"Many may take access to the subway system for granted, but for
our members and constituents, the exceedingly few elevators is a
daily reminder of how little effort the MTA has placed on making
it a system open to all," DIA President Anthony Trocchia said in a
statement.  "Hopefully, this suit can initiate a change in MTA
priorities."


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Lfoundry Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs are
appealing the dismissal of the Southern District of New York
Action by LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and LFR Employees.

On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini, individually and on
behalf of a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "District Court") against Atmel, its French subsidiary,
Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"),
LFR's German parent. The case purports to relate to Atmel
Rousset's June 2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility in
Rousset, France to LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency, and later
liquidation, more than three years later. The District Court
dismissed the case on August 21, 2015, and plaintiffs are
appealing the dismissal.


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Airbag Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that an Amended and
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the
case, In re: Continental Airbag Products Liability Litigation.

On May 11, 2016, an Amended and Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division)
against Atmel, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Honda Motor
Co., Ltd. and an affiliate, and Daimler AG and an affiliate.

The Complaint which includes claims arising under federal law and
Florida, California, New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana state law-
alleges that class members unknowingly purchased or leased
vehicles containing defective airbag control units (allegedly
incorporating defective application specific integrated circuits
manufactured by Atmel between 2006 and 2010), and thereby suffered
financial harm, including a loss in the value of their purchased
or leased vehicles. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and exemplary damages, statutory penalties, pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and other
relief. Atmel intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously.


NINE ENERGY: "West" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
William West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nine Energy Service, LLC Defendant, Case
No. 7:16-cv-00190 (W.D. Tex., June 22, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Nine is a nationwide oilfield services with significant completion
and land drilling operations throughout the United States.
Plaintiff and his coworkers were employed by Defendant as oilfield
personnel, performing technical and manual labor job duties for
tubing conveyed perforating, wireline, and packer jobs for oil and
gas service companies.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


NOTIS GLOBAL: Court Continued Final Fairness Hearing to August 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notis Global, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2016, that a court
has continued a final settlement fairness hearing to August 15,
2016, at 1:30 p.m.

As reported in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2015, on December 1, 2015, Notis Global and
the class plaintiffs in Josh Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-CV-00426-BRO (JEMx), pending before the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Court") notified the Court of a settlement. The Court stayed the
action pending the Court's review of the settlement and directed
the parties to file a stipulation of settlement. On December 18,
2015, plaintiffs filed the Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement that included the stipulation of
settlement.

On February 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement provides
for notice to be given to the class, a period for opt outs and a
final approval hearing. The Court had scheduled the Final
Settlement Approval Hearing to be held on May 16, 2016 at 1:30
p.m.

On May 13, 2016, Court Order continued the final fairness hearing
to August 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

The disclosure set forth provides notice to potential objectors of
the change to the hearing date.


O&J RESTAURANT: "Picado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Abel Lopez Picado, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. O&J Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Molina's Ranch Restaurant and Jose
O. Jorge, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-22760-RNS (S.D. Cal., June
28, 2016), seeks overtime and minimum wages, double damages and
reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

O&J Restaurant Corp. operates Molina's Ranch Restaurant with Jose
O. Jorge as owner.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an
assistant cook.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


OI S.A.: Defendant in 66 Civil Class Actions by Attorney General
----------------------------------------------------------------
OI S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in 66 civil
class actions filed by the Attorney General of the National
Treasury jointly with certain consumer agencies demanding the re-
opening of customer service centers.

The Company said, "The lower courts have rendered decisions in all
of these proceedings, some of which have been unfavorable to us.
All of these proceedings are currently under appeal. As of
December 31, 2015, we had recorded provisions in the amount of
R$12 million for those claims in respect of which we deemed the
risk of loss as probable."


OI S.A.: Defendant in Class Action by Federal Prosecutor's Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OI S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in a civil
class action lawsuit filed by the Federal Prosecutor's Office
(Ministerio Publico Federal) seeking recovery for alleged
collective moral damages caused by TNL's alleged non-compliance
with the Customer Service (Servico de Atendimento ao Consumidor -
SAC) regulations established by the Ministry of Justice
(Ministerio da Justica).

The Company said, "TNL presented its defense and asked for a
change of venue to federal court in Rio de Janeiro, where we are
headquartered. Other defendants have been named and await service
of process. The amount involved in this action is R$300 million.
As a result of the corporate reorganization, we have succeeded to
TNL's position as a defendant in this action. As of December 31,
2015, we deemed the risk of loss as possible with respect to these
lawsuits and had not made any provisions with respect to this
action since it was awaiting the court's initial decision."


PARTNERS FEDERAL: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Draft Fee Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA JOYCE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION (PFCU) and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BC625343
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks monetary damages,
restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief against
Defendants arising from Defendants' breach of their contracts with
consumers in the implementation of an overdraft fee program.
Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that PFCU charged overdraft fees
for completing payment on transactions that her account had enough
money to cover on its own.

Partners Federal provides financial products and services for
Employees and Cast Members of The Walt Disney Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Jae K. Kim, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557 1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  jkk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          G. James Strenio, Esq.
          Robert J. Dart, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          201 Wilshire Boulevard
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 395 2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395 2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  James@kicklawfirm.com
                  Robert@kicklawfirm.com


PDQ TRANSPORTATION: "Terrel" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Terrell and Danerio Stubbs, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PDQ Transportation, Inc.
d/b/a Urban Express Charter, Eastern Horizon, Inc. D/B/A Urban
Express Transportation, Qeis Atieh and Pamela Atieh, Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00579 (S.D. Ohio., June 22, 2016), seeks unpaid
overtime pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, award of costs and expenses of this action, together
with reasonable attorney fees and expert fees and such other legal
and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate Urban Express located at 1640 East
Fifth Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43219, managing a fleet of vehicles
for passenger transportation. Plaintiffs worked as piece-rate
drivers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Beggs, Esq.
      BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Tel: 614-457-7800
      Fax: 614-448-9408
      Email: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com

             - and -

      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      KIMBLE LAW, LLC
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Email: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com
      Tel: 614-983-0361
      Fax: 614-448-9408


PEOPLES BANK: Faces "Langston" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LANGSTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO., Case 5:16-cv-00745-HE (W.D. Okla.,
June 30, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant Peoples Bank & Trust Company is an active banking
institute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
     DONELON, P.C.
     420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (816) 221-7100
     Fax: (816) 709-1044
     E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Merger Deal with DS Healthcare Terminated
---------------------------------------------------------
DS Healthcare Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that the
Company on May 25, 2016, delivered a notice to PhotoMedex, Inc. to
indicate various breaches and concerns observed by the Board of
Directors. The notice detailed the following:

     1. Misrepresentation in public statements to DS Healthcare
shareholders that upon the consummation of transaction PhotoMedex
shareholders will own approximately 43% of the company and DS
Healthcare shareholders will own approximately 57%. It was
determined that this statement is false and misleading as
PhotoMedex could obtain far more than 43% of DS Healthcare's
common stock under the terms of the acquisition Agreement. When
members of the Board of Directors of DS Healthcare notified
PhotoMedex regarding this significantly material discrepancy,
PhotoMedex refused to update the agreement to correctly reflect
the belief of DS Healthcare shareholders and the public statements
made by PhotoMedex.

     2. Failure to satisfy the condition precedent in Section
2.12(h) of the Agreement, which requires that Photomedex not be
subject to any legal proceedings that could reasonably be expected
to have a material adverse effect. However, both Radiancy, Inc.
and PhotoMedex, Inc. are defendants in two putative class action
lawsuits: Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc. et al., currently pending as
Case No. 1:15-cv-01649 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California; and Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc., currently
pending as Case No. 1:15-cv-01142-CKK in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia (collectively, the "Radiancy Class
Actions").  In its SEC form 10-Q dated May 13, 2016 PhotoMedex
represented that "the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot
be reasonably estimated" for either of the Radiancy Class Actions.
Given the admission by PhotoMedex that it cannot quantify its
potential liability for these matters, PhotoMedex cannot satisfy
the condition set forth in Section 2.12(h). Moreover, PhotoMedex
affirmatively represented to the district court in the Cantley
lawsuit that it "determined the amount in controversy exceeded
five-million dollars pursuant to [PhotoMedex's] own
investigation."

     3. PhotoMedex breached its obligations under Sections 5.3
("Further Assurances") and 5.11(c) ("Access to Information.
Confidentiality") of the Agreements by providing false information
in response to reasonable requests from DS Healthcare.

     4. PhotoMedex failed to timely file a proxy statement as
required under Section 5.1(a) of the Agreements.

Upon receiving this notice from DS Healthcare, PhotoMedex
terminated the various merger Agreements and filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking a $3 million termination fee and an additional $750,000
reimbursement. DS Healthcare intends to file a counter-claim and
will vigorously defend the claims made by Photomedex.

PhotoMedex, Inc. (NasdaqGS and TASE:PHMD) announced in February
2016 that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell its
consumer products and professional products businesses to DS
Healthcare Group (Nasdaq: DSKX), a Pompano, Florida-based
developer of topical pharmaceutical and personal care products,
for total consideration of approximately $48 million in a
combination of convertible preferred stock, common stock and a
note.


POST FOODS: "Wu" Alleges Carcinogen in Wheat Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Andy Wu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Post Foods, LLC and Post Holdings, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-03494 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2016), seeks
restitution, disgorgement, refund and/or other monetary damages,
together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorney fees, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief
resulting from breach of express and implied warranty, unjust
enrichment pursuant to the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and
Practices, California's False Advertising Law and California's
Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiff alleges that Post(R) Shredded Wheat products
manufactured and sold by the Defendants contain glyphosate, a
potent herbicide that causes cancer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael F. Ram, Esq.
     RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
     101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 433-4949
     Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
     Email: mram@rocklawcal.com

            - and -

     Beth E. Terrell, SBN #178181
     Erika L. Nusser
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103
     Telephone: (206) 816-6603
     Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
     Email: enusser@terrellmarshall.com
            bterrell@terrellmarshall.com


POST FOODS: "Stephenson" Alleges Carcinogen in Wheat Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stephenson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Post Foods, LLC and Post Holdings, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03396 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2015), seeks
restitution, disgorgement, refund and/or other monetary damages,
together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorney fees, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief pursuant
to New York General Business Laws.

Plaintiff alleges that Post(R) Shredded Wheat products
manufactured and sold by the Defendants contain glyphosate, a
potent herbicide that causes cancer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kim E. Richman, Esq.
     THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
     81 Prospect Street
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Telephone: (212) 687-8291
     Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
     Email: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com


PRINCE GEORGE, WA: Carraway Sex Scandal Prompts Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lynh Bui, writing for The Washington Post, reports that a grand
jury indicted a former elementary school volunteer on 270 counts
of child pornography and related charges in an extensive sex abuse
scandal that shook Prince George's County.

The indictment comes four months after Deonte Carraway, 22, was
arrested in the wide-reaching case and increases the official
victim count from 17 to 23.

Officials with the Prince George's County State's Attorney's
Office announced the indictment on June 29 and said the office
also is conducting a tandem investigation to determine whether any
adults at the school failed to report Mr. Carraway's behavior and
should be criminally charged as a result.

Prince George's County State's Attorney Angela Alsobrooks said the
Carraway case is the largest indictment her office has handled
since she took office in 2011.  The material presented to the
grand jury represents evidence from more than 100 videos and
photos recorded over a roughly seven-month period, prosecutors
said.

"It speaks to how horrible this case was and is," Ms. Alsobrooks
said.

Mr. Carraway, of Glenarden, abused or recorded children performing
sex acts at Judge Sylvania W. Woods Elementary School, where he
worked as a paid teacher's aide before becoming a library
volunteer, according to prosecutors.  The incidents he is accused
of occurred on school property during the school day or at the
Glenarden Community Center, where he ran a local youth choir,
prosecutors said.

Mr. Carraway visited the homes of many children involved in the
case after their parents had asked him to babysit or tutor, the
indictment states.  He then told children that they were part of a
club and that to remain members, they had to record themselves or
let him record them performing explicit sexual acts on devices
known as "the orange phone" and "the white phone," the indictment
states.

Mr. Carraway also victimized children at a public pool, at a Bowie
church and in private homes, police have said.

The grand jury's charges are in addition to 13 counts that federal
authorities filed against Mr. Carraway earlier this year.

The group of children involved in the indictment announced on June
29 are between the ages of 9 and 13 and comprises 20 boys and 3
girls, although there could be additional victims, prosecutors
said.

The indictment was built using what prosecutors characterized as
their strongest evidence -- mostly based on videos from phones Mr.
Carraway allegedly distributed to children -- in an effort, they
said, to avoid adding to the children's trauma by having them
appear in court to testify.

"The effort in crafting this indictment was to try to minimize the
impact on children," said Thomas Degonia, a special assistant
state's attorney.  "That's not to say there aren't many other
children who may have been involved or affected."

Prince George's police and federal law enforcement officials said
Mr. Carraway admitted to giving children phones and telling them
to use the devices to send explicit images to him through an
anonymous messaging app called Kik.

But in court filings, Mr. Carraway's federal public defenders said
their client's confession should be tossed out because it was not
given voluntarily and because Mr. Carraway did not fully
understand his rights when speaking with police.

An attorney representing Mr. Carraway could not be immediately
reached to comment on June 29.

The case roiled parents in Prince George's, particularly in the
roughly 6,000-resident city of Glenarden where Mr. Carraway lived,
worked and volunteered.  Woods Elementary parents have
specifically asked why Mr. Carraway was allegedly allowed to be
alone with students at the school and why the abuse charged in the
case was allowed to occur over the course of a year before law
enforcement got involved. The principal and a teacher at the
school were put on leave in the aftermath of Mr. Carraway's
arrest.

Ms. Alsobrooks also said the office is still working on a criminal
investigation to determine "how these particular crimes were
allowed to occur" and whether there were "other individuals that
may have had knowledge of these acts."

The case went to Prince George's police after an uncle checking a
student's cellphone noticed inappropriate photos on the device and
alerted authorities.

After Mr. Carraway's arrest, the county school system launched a
task force to review how employees are trained to identify and
report suspected child abuse.  The report, issued in May, stated
that the system needed to make sweeping improvements to better
protect students.

The report, however, did not address specifics of the Carraway
investigation.

Prince George's school officials said in a statement on June 29
that they appreciate the efforts of law enforcement agencies and
look forward to Mr. Carraway being held accountable for his
"heinous and horrifying crimes."  They said they would continue
working on the task force's recommendations to improve school
safety.

The case has prompted at least six civil suits, including a class-
action lawsuit against the county school system.


QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Thoma Bravo Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on June 29
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another
law firm on behalf of stockholders of Qlik Technologies, Inc.
("Qlik" or the "Company") seeking to challenge the Company's
recently announced merger.

If you would like to join the class action, please visit our
website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-
6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn --
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter --
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

On June 2, 2016, Qlik and private equity firm Thoma Bravo LLC
("Thoma Bravo") announced the signing of a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Thoma Bravo will acquire Qlik in an
all-cash merger worth approximately $3 billion.  As a result of
the merger, Qlik shareholders are only expected to receive $30.50
per share.

The consideration that Qlik shareholders are expected to receive
is inadequate.  Following the announcement of the merger,
according to a Barron's report, analyst Ed Maguire from CLSA
Americas stated that Qlik "took the easy way out with little
premium."  The consideration is also $11.42 below Qlik's 52-week
high of $41.92 and below the median price target of $34.96 of
several financial analysts.

On June 15, 2016, a Qlik shareholder represented by another law
firm filed a class action complaint challenging Qlik's merger with
Thoma Bravo.  The complaint was filed in the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas of Delaware County, captioned Willems v. Qlik
Technologies Inc., et al, Case No. 2016-005249.

If you own shares of Qlik and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-
investigations/qlik-technologies-class-action-investigation or
contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com,
or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.

Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing
shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that oral argument has not yet been
scheduled in a federal securities class action appeal.

On November 19, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company
and certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Quality Systems, Inc.,
Steven T. Plochocki, Paul A. Holt and Sheldon Razin, No. SACV13-
01818-CJC-JPRx, by the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, a
shareholder of the Company. The complaint is a putative class
action filed on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other
than the defendants.

The Company said, "After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re
Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-
CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7,
2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the
litigation described above under the caption "Hussein Litigation,"
generally alleges that statements made to our shareholders
regarding our financial condition and projected future performance
were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements
because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court
costs and attorneys' fees."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20,
2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the
complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court denied on
January 5, 2015.

"On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In
re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173.
Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and we answered. Oral
argument is not yet scheduled.

"We believe that plaintiff's claims are without merit and
continues to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are
unable to estimate the amount of liability, if any, related to
this claim."

Quality Systems, Inc., primarily through its NextGen Healthcare
subsidiary, provides technology-based solutions and services to
the ambulatory care market in the United States.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: "Foss" Action Stayed Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that the lawsuit by Timothy J. Foss
remains stayed pending a federal securities class action appeal.

On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers and current and former directors
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh,
George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris
Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin,
Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-
DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of the Company. The
complaint arises from the same allegations related to the
complaints filed by Ahmed D. Hussein and the Deerfield Beach
Police Pension Fund and generally alleges breach of fiduciary
duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by the Company's
directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by
individual directors. The parties have agreed to stay this
litigation until the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issues a ruling on the pending appeal in the Quality
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation matter.

"Although we believe the claims to be without merit, our operating
results and share price may be negatively impacted due to the
negative publicity, expenses incurred in connection with our
defense, management distraction, and/or other factors related to
this litigation," the Company said.

Quality Systems, Inc., primarily through its NextGen Healthcare
subsidiary, provides technology-based solutions and services to
the ambulatory care market in the United States.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: July 28 Hearing on Summary Adjudication Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that a hearing is set for July 28,
2016, on a motion for summary adjudication in the Hussein
Litigation.

The Company said, "On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed
against our Company and certain of our officers and directors in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven
Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-
2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and
significant shareholder of our Company.  We filed a demurrer to
the complaint, which the court granted on April 10, 2014. An
amended complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. The amended
complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud,
negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with statements made to our shareholders regarding our
financial condition and projected future performance. The amended
complaint seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages and
costs. We filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 29,
2014, the court sustained the demurrer with respect to the breach
of fiduciary duty claim, and overruled the demurrer with respect
to the fraud and deceit claims. On August 28, 2014, we filed an
answer and also filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff,
alleging that the plaintiff breached fiduciary duties owed to our
Company, Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki. On June 26, 2015, we filed a
motion for summary judgment, which the court granted on September
16, 2015, dismissing all claims against us. On September 23, 2015,
the plaintiff filed an application for reconsideration of the
Court's summary judgment order, which the court denied. On October
28, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment,
seeking to dismiss our cross-complaint, which the court denied on
March 3, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for
summary adjudication, seeking to again dismiss our cross-
complaint.  The hearing for the motion is set for July 28, 2016.
We believe that plaintiff's claims are without merit and continues
to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are unable to
estimate the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.
Federal Securities Class Action."

Quality Systems, Inc., primarily through its NextGen Healthcare
subsidiary, provides technology-based solutions and services to
the ambulatory care market in the United States.


RENTOKIL NORTH: Sued in Cal. Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
VAHE MESSERLIAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA INC., formerly
known as J. C. Ehrlich Co., Inc. (d/b/a Western Exterminator
Company), and DOES 1-100m inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC625133 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 27, 2016), seeks statutory and
treble damages on behalf of himself and the class and subclass,
and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing
their unlawful practice of sending unsolicited fax advertisements
and causing or contributing to the unlawful practice of sending
unsolicited fax advertisements to others, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The class which Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as:

     "All persons and other entities within the United States who
were a subscriber of a telephone facsimile number and to which
telephone facsimile number Defendants sent or caused to be sent,
within four years of the date this action was filed."

The Subclass is defined as:

     "All persons and other entities within California who were
a subscriber of a telephone facsimile number and to which
telephone facsimile number Defendants sent from California or
caused to be sent from California, within four years of the date
this action was filed."

Rentokil is a pest control services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574 7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574 9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi.com


SEIU HEALTHCARE: Union Members Lose Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Domanick, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that employers recently
gained support for one of their defenses to class claims, and in a
case against a union no less, after a federal court in Illinois
found that union members' claims may require individualized
questions and therefore were not appropriate for class treatment.
See Riffey v. Rauner, et al., 10-cv-02477 (N.D. Ill. June 7,
2016).

The dispute stemmed from SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana's
practice of deducting "fair share" union dues from home health
aides' Medicaid reimbursements.  Previously, SEIU received more
than $32 million in dues from approximately 80,000 current and
former home health aides from 2008 to 2014.  However, in 2014, the
Supreme Court declared that the collection arrangement was
unconstitutional as a violation of individuals' First Amendment
rights.  It held the health aides and child-care workers weren't
"full-fledged" public employees and couldn't be compelled to pay
dues to a union recognized by the state as their bargaining agent.
See Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014).

Based upon the ruling in Harris, a prospective class action was
created in which workers sought to claw back the $32 million paid
to SEIU.  The plaintiffs moved for class certification under
Rule 23.  The Court denied the motion, stating that certification
was not appropriate because the plaintiffs sought to represent
thousands of union members who supported SEIU and would have
voluntarily paid their "fair share" dues.  Additionally, the Court
determined that too many individualized questions existed, such as
the fact a large percentage of the prospective class likely was
not injured by the conduct, and for those that were harmed,
individualized determinations predominated over common questions.
As a result, the Court ruled class certification was
inappropriate.   Plaintiffs have stated they plan to appeal this
decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

While the ultimate outcome of this case is yet to be determined,
this decision highlights the importance of fighting overbroad
class definitions when defending class actions, especially when
dealing with potentially thousands of class members.  Although
unionized employers still need to meet their requirements under
the applicable collective bargaining agreement, employers can use
this case when defending against class certification for the
proposition that certification should be denied because, even if
all class members are in the same union, all union members "are
not equal" and may not suffer the same injury based upon a common
policy or procedure.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Motion For Protective Order Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company's Motion
for Protective Order remains pending and Claimants' opposition to
SJI's Motion For Protective Order was due June 3, 2016.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and
SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification
motion was held in late February 2014.

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The
arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants'
emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on
February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and
denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants
filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for
Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI
filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on
March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015.
Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015.
SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March
23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion
was heard on May 4, 2015.

On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in
part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Claimants filed their opposition on December 2, 2015. SJI filed
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
SJI's Notice of Appeal of the Southern District's November 16,
2015 Opinion and Order. The arbitrator issued an order denying
SJI's Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and
Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016.

On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for
Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect
of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015.
Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was
granted on June 15, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for
Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and
Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was
filed on May 1, 2015.

Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. The arbitrator heard
oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on
February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action
Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For
Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying
Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and
tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16,
2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of
the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay
Arbitration Pending The District Court's Consideration Of
Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March
10, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending
The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016. Claimants filed their
opposition on April 4, 2016. The arbitrator denied SJI's Motion on
April 5, 2016.

On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award
And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period. Claimants filed their opposition brief on April 11, 2016,
SJI filed its reply on April 20, 2016, and oral argument was heard
on SJI's Motion on May 11, 2016. SJI's Motion was denied on May
22, 2016.

Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on
November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an
order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The
arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a
Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016. Claimants' opposition
was due June 3, 2016.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Opt-In Collective Action Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a Court has
conditionally certified an opt-in collective action in the case by
Naomi Tapia.

Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in
three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale
Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23,
2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on
July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of
California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was
filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include
allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour
labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former
Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits
seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result
of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any
liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Hodge
and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of
the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was
implemented.

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and
Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale
Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action
Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec. 216(b). Plaintiff filed her
Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification on June 3, 2015.

On April 6, 2016, the Court conditionally certified an opt-in
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of all
current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a
Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as nonexempt and who
worked in a Zale retail store in the United States at any time
from July 3, 2010 to the present. Additionally, the court
certified an opt-out class action of the remaining claims on
behalf of all current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware
Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as
nonexempt, and worked in a Zale retail store in the State of
California at any time from July 3, 2009 through the date of this
mailing.

At this time, the class has not yet received notice of the ruling
and has not yet been provided the opportunity to opt in or opt
out. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this
litigation. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that SJI filed a Petition
for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States
on April 29, 2016.

On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District
Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's lawsuit
alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female
retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The
EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact
discovery closed in mid-May 2013.

In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment
on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment
motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge
issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the
Court grant SJI's motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss
the EEOC's claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections
to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and SJI filed its response
thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the
EEOC's objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7,
2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action
with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of
Appeal of the District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties
fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5,
2015.

On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court's
order and remanding the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and
En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015. On December
4, 2015, SJI filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit a Motion Of Appellee Sterling Jewelers Inc. For
Stay Of Mandate Pending Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. The
Motion was granted by the Second Circuit on December 10, 2015. SJI
filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of
the United States on April 29, 2016.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been
defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation is able to be estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Delaware Supreme Court Affirmed Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware has affirmed the Court of Chancery's
dismissal of the entirety of the amended complaint challenging the
Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation.

Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the
Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation were filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al.,
C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et
al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp.
et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale
Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v.
Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014
(collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions was brought
by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale
Corporation stockholders.

The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014
(the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as
defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors
of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary
of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders
in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger
agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to
an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher
bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation
directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy
statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the
Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches
of fiduciary duty. On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the
consummation of the merger.

On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the
prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation's
former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a
defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation
directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no
longer named as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company's
merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint sought, among
other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees. The defendant's motion to dismiss
was heard by the Court of Chancery on May 20, 2015. On October 1,
2015, the Court dismissed the claims against the Zale Corporation
directors and the Company. On October 29, 2015, the Court
dismissed the claims against Bank of America Merrill Lynch. On
November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the October 1,
2015 and October 29, 2015 decisions of the Court of Chancery with
the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On May 6, 2016, the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Court of
Chancery's dismissal of the entirety of the amended complaint.


SOLAR BEAR: "Izquierdo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Aleymer Izquierdo, on behalf of himself and all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Solar Bear Services LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22790 (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2016),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is into the air-conditioning business and employed
Plaintiff as a piece rate worker, thus denying him overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
     JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
     1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
     Miami, FL 33135
     Phone: (786) 441-8909
     Facsimile: (786) 523-0610
     E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Marchelos" Class Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the case, Peter
Marchelos, et al v. Intellectual Capital Management, et al,
remains pending.

On January 1, 2014, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS
Masterminds was named in a potential class-action lawsuit titled
Telford v. Intellectual Capital, et al, filed in the United States
District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the
"TCPA"). The Company believed the Plaintiff's allegations had no
merit but based upon the economics of continued litigation, the
Company resolved the lawsuit in May 2015 for the sum of $34,612,
and the action is no longer pending.

On July 8, 2015, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS
Masterminds and SpendSmart Networks, Inc. were named in a
potential class-action lawsuit entitled Peter Marchelos, et al v.
Intellectual Capital Management, et al, filed in the United States
District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. This
litigation involves the same licensee and merchant as the Telford
lawsuit and the same attorneys represent the plaintiffs in this
action. The claim of one of the two plaintiffs was resolved for
$1,701.

The Company believes the Plaintiff's allegations have no merit.
"There are no other legal claims currently pending or threatened
against us that in the opinion of our management would be likely
to have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows," the Company said.


STACCA RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Minimum, OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Pavon-Hernandez and Angel Morales-Toxqui, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Stacca
Restaurant Corp., Spiro Mouzakitis and Carol Hatzisotiriou,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05045 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2016),
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, and N.Y. Labor Law; as well as spread of
hours and overtime wages under orders of the New York Commissioner
of Labor including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a diner located at 352 E 23rd
St, New York, NY 10010 under the name "East Side Cafe" where
Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


SUTTER WEST: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik on June 29 disclosed that it filed a class action
lawsuit alleging that Sutter West Bay Hospitals failed to pay
their hourly employees the correct amount of overtime wages and
allegedly failed to provide their California employees with meal
and rest periods in accordance with the California law.  The
Sutter West Bay Hospitals lawsuit, civ538977 is currently pending
in the San Mateo County Superior Court for the State of
California.

The class action complaint alleges the company paid their non-
exempt employees non-discretionary bonus based on their
performance for the company.  The Complaint further alleges that
as a matter of law the various bonus wages paid to the Sutter West
Bay employees should have been included in the employees' hourly
rates for the purposes of paying their employees the correct
overtime wages.  As a result of the alleged illegal overtime
calculations conducted by Sutter West Bay, the class action
lawsuit claims other non-exempt employees working for the company
were also not correctly paid all their overtime wages.

The Complaint further claims the Golden State employees missed
meal breaks because allegedly Sutter West Bay failed to have a
policy to provide their employees thirty (30) minute uninterrupted
meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work.

If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code
and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please
contact an experienced California labor lawyer today by calling
(800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, and Riverside that dedicates its practice to helping
employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair
business practices, including violations of the California Labor
Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Objectors Appeal Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended April 1, 2016, that objectors to a class action
settlement have filed notices of appeal to the Eight Circuit Court
of Appeals, challenging the Court's approval of the settlement.

On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.;
the lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment
related to prior sales of Extended Download Service ("EDS") and
Norton Download Insurance ("NDI"). On March 31, 2014, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of
all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005
and March 10, 2011.

In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the Company would pay the plaintiffs $30
million, which we accrued. On October 8, 2015, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement, which was subsequently
paid by the Company into escrow. The Court granted final approval
on April 22, 2016, and entered judgment in the case. Objectors to
the settlement have filed notices of appeal to the Eight Circuit
Court of Appeals, challenging the Court's approval of the
settlement.

Symantec Corporation is a global leader in security.


SYNCREON TECHNOLOGY: Faces "King" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
GENE KING, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. SYNCREON TECHNOLOGY (USA) LLC, Case 3:16-cv-00171
(S.D. Tex., June 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Syncreon Technology (USA) LLC is a logistics company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Center
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Fax: (713) 222-6739


TARGET CORPORATION: Faces Police Retirement System Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the on May 17, 2016,
Target Corporation, its former chief executive officer and its
current chief operating officer were named as defendants in a
purported federal securities law class action filed in the United
States District Court of the District of Minnesota under the
caption Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Target
Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01315-ADM-FLN, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior
disclosures of Target about its expansion of retail operations
into Canada. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired Target stock between
February 27, 2013 and May 19, 2014, and seeks damages and other
relief, including attorneys' fees, based on allegations that the
defendants' conduct affected the value of such stock. Target has
not yet responded to the lawsuit, but intends to vigorously defend
against it.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
putative class-action lawsuit has been filed in the state of
California against a large IT enterprise following allegations
that the defendant failed to provide its California-based hourly
workers with uninterrupted, 30-minute meal periods as required
under California employment law.  The lawsuit, filed against Tata
Consultancy Services Ltd., also carries implications surrounding
the alleged unpaid overtime and the keeping of inconsistent
records.

The IT world is rife with situations where IT consultants are
called in to rescue a corporation, small business or even the
individual when the valued computer platform(s) suddenly goes
south. Downtime is critical, and usually panic ensues while the
platform is not functional and the client is off line or
otherwise, dead in the water.  To that end, IT professionals often
feel pressure from their employers, or their clients, to keep
working until the bug is worked out, the problem fixed, and the
enterprise back online and engaged.

However, California overtime laws do not account for such heroics
or expectations.  While a salaried IT professional is usually
making a sufficiently high salary that precludes them from
receiving overtime or regular meal periods, an hourly worker is
protected under California overtime laws and federally under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Overtime must be claimed and
paid for any work performed beyond eight hours in any given
workday or beyond 40 hours in any given work week.

What's more, an uninterrupted meal period must be provided prior
to the 5th hour of work.  This is mandated in order to ensure that
an employee is properly nourished and rested.

Not only is such non-provision of meal and rest periods a
violation of basic employee rights, but according to overtime pay
laws, any missed meal breaks or rest periods are subject to
interpretation that an employee is working through them, resulting
in additional work hours for which overtime must be paid.

The unpaid overtime lawsuit asserts that Tata failed to keep
employment wage statements and proper records, failing to "record
and pay Plaintiff and other California Class Members for the
actual amount of time these employees worked, including overtime
worked."

The proposed putative class-action overtime pay lawsuit was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the
County of San Diego.  Lead plaintiff in the case is identified as
Joshua Hall.  The lawsuit is Case No. 37-2016-000016447-CU-OE-CTL.

The lawsuit was filed May 17 of this year.


THRIVE MARKET: Sanchez Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL VAZQUEZ SANCHEZ and ALEX VAZQUEZ, as individuals and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THRIVE
MARKET, INC., dba THRIVE MARKET TECHNOLOGIES, INC., an entity
unknown; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC
625182 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks to recover damages
and injunctive relief against Defendant for missed meal period and
rest break premiums, overtime and minimum wages, vested vacation
wages, and penalties, pursuant to the Labor Code, the Industrial
Welfare Commission, and Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants acted intentionally and
with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to
the rights of all employees in (1) failing to pay all meal period
wages and rest break wages, (2) failing to pay all overtime wages
and minimum wages, (3) failing to pay all vested vacation wages,
including vacation equivalents, (4) failing to timely pay all
wages due and owing upon termination of employment, (5) failing to
provide accurate wage statements, and (6) engaging in unfair
business practices.

Thrive Market is an e-commerce site that sells healthy organic
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
          Brian O. Lee, Esq.
          YOONLAW, APC
          One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612 0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947 1211

               - and -

          JOSEPH M. HEKMAT, Esq.
          HEKMAT LAW GROUP
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700
          Los, Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (424) 888 0848
          Facsimile: (424) 270 0242


TRANSAMERICA: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action for $3.8 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for CFO.com, reports that retirement plan
provider Transamerica Corp. has agreed to pay $3.8 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit over the fees it charged
participants in its own 401(k) plan.

Participants alleged Transamerica's parent company Aegon collected
$40 million by charging "layers of superfluous fees" for
investment management and other services.  An Iowa judge approved
the settlement of the ERISA class action.

Transamerica's 401(k) plan had 16,715 combined participants and
deceased participants with beneficiaries receiving benefits and
held $1.56 billion in assets at the end of the 2013 plan year.
According to the suit, which was filed in February 2015, Aegon
managed the plan "to benefit itself, in breach of its fiduciary
obligations under ERISA, by burdening the Plan with layers of
superfluous fees paid to Aegon affiliates."

Among other things, the suit alleged, Aegon portfolio managers
charged a "substantial" investment management fee even though they
simply picked an underlying Aegon mutual fund in which to invest
plan assets.  At least 16 Aegon collective investment trusts or
pooled separate accounts were offered in the plan.

In addition, the company allegedly charged an advisor fee "merely
for picking a subadvisor to do all the real work of portfolio
management.

"Mega plans," those having over $1 billion in assets, have a
median total fee of 30 basis points, or .30%, including management
fees, administrative fees and other insurance charges, according
to the suit.  The Aegon plan had average fees each year of more
than 160 basis points, or 1.6%, on management investment fees
alone, the suit said.

"Transamerica joins a growing list of retirement plan service
providers that have been targeted in similar excessive-fee
lawsuits by their plan participants," InvestmentNews reported.

In early June, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance agreed to
settle with its employees for $31 million, while Fidelity
Investments and Ameriprise Financial have recently paid out $12
million and $27.5 million, respectively.


TRANSUNION: Updates on Bankruptcy Tradeline Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion, in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, provided
updates on the so-called Bankruptcy Tradeline Litigation.

The Company said, "In a matter captioned White, et al, v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in
2005 in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California), plaintiffs sought class action status against
Equifax, Experian and us in connection with the reporting of
delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations on a consumer
report after the consumer was discharged in a bankruptcy
proceeding. The claims allege that each national consumer
reporting company did not automatically update a consumer's file
after their discharge from bankruptcy and such non-action was a
failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum file
accuracy, a requirement of the FCRA."

"Without admitting any wrongdoing, we have agreed to a settlement
of this matter. In August 2008, the Court approved an agreement
whereby we and the other industry defendants voluntarily changed
certain operational practices. These changes require us to update
certain delinquent records when we learn, through the collection
of public records, that the consumer has received an order of
discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. These business practice
changes did not have a material adverse impact on our operations
or those of our customers.

"In 2009, we also agreed, with the other two defendants, to settle
the monetary claims associated with this matter for $17.0 million
each ($51.0 million in total), which amount will be distributed
from a settlement fund to pay the class counsel's attorney fees,
all administration and notice costs of the fund to the purported
class, and a variable damage amount to consumers within the class
based on the level of harm the consumer is able to confirm. Our
share of this settlement was fully covered by insurance. Final
approval of this monetary settlement by the Court occurred in July
2011. Certain objecting plaintiffs appealed the Court's final
approval of the monetary settlement and, in April 2013, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the final
approval order and remanded the matter to the District Court. The
rationale provided by the Court of Appeals was not that the
proposed settlement was unfair or defective, but that named class
counsel and certain named plaintiffs did not adequately represent
the interests of the class because of certain identified
conflicts. Objecting counsel to the settlement has sought to
become new class counsel and the District Court denied that
request. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling on interlocutory
appeal and on May 5, 2016, denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing en banc.

"If the monetary settlement is not ultimately upheld, we expect to
vigorously litigate this matter and to assert what we believe are
valid defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs. Regardless of
what occurs next, we believe we have not violated any law, have
valid defenses and are willing to aggressively litigate this
matter. We do not believe any final resolution of this matter will
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition."


TRANSUNION: Stay in Miller Litigation Lifted
--------------------------------------------
TransUnion said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that the
stay in the Miller litigation has been lifted.

The Company said, "As a result of a decision by the United States
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (Cortez v. Trans Union
LLC), we modified one of our add-on services we offer to our
business customers that was designed to alert our customer that
the consumer, who was seeking to establish a business relationship
with the customer, may potentially be on the Office of Foreign
Assets Control, Specifically Designated National and Blocked
Persons alert list (the "OFAC Alert"). The OFAC Alert service is
meant to assist our customers with their compliance obligations in
connection with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
(USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001."

"In Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC, (No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC, United
States District Court for the Northern District of California),
filed in 2012, the plaintiff has alleged that: the OFAC Alert
service does not comply with the Cortez ruling; we have willfully
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the
corresponding California state-FCRA based on the Cortez ruling by
continuing to offer the OFAC Alert service; and there are one or
more classes of individuals who should be entitled to statutory
damages (i.e., $100 to $5,000 per person) based on the allegedly
willful violations.

In addition to the Ramirez action, the same lawyers representing
Ramirez (who also represented the plaintiff in Cortez) filed two
additional alleged class actions in 2012 (Miller v. Trans Union,
LLC, No. 12-1715-WJN, United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania; and Larson v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-
5726-JSC, United States District Court for the Northern District
of California) and one in 2014 (Amit Patel, et al. v. TransUnion
LLC, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. and TransUnion
Background Data Solutions, No. 14-cv-0522-LB, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California) claiming
that our process for disclosing OFAC information to consumers, or
how we match OFAC information to a consumer's name or other
identifying information, violates the FCRA and, in some instances,
the corresponding California state-FCRA. In addition to the OFAC
allegations, the plaintiff in the Patel action seeks to collapse
all TransUnion FCRA regulated entities into a single entity.

"In July 2014, the Court in Ramirez certified a class of
approximately 8,000 individuals solely for purposes of statutory
damages if TransUnion is ultimately found to have willfully
violated the FCRA, and a sub-class of California residents solely
for purposes of injunctive relief under the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act. While the Court noted that the
plaintiff is not seeking any actual monetary damage, the class
certification order was predicated on a disputed question of Ninth
Circuit law (currently there is a conflict between the federal
circuits) that is awaiting action by the United States Supreme
Court. Our motions to stay the Ramirez, Miller and Larson
proceedings were granted and the proceedings stayed pending action
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins.

"In June 2015, the Court in Patel certified a national class of
approximately 11,000 individuals with respect to allegations that
TransUnion willfully violated the FCRA by failing to maintain and
follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible
accuracy of their information, and a national subclass of
approximately 3,000 individuals with respect to allegations that
TransUnion willfully violated the FCRA by failing to provide
consumers with all information in their files. In September 2015,
our motion to stay the Patel proceedings was granted and the
proceedings stayed pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Spokeo v. Robins.

"On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in
Spokeo v. Robins, holding that the injury-in-fact requirement for
standing under Article III of the United States Constitution
requires a plaintiff to allege an injury that is both "concrete
and particularized." The Court held that the Ninth Circuit's
analysis failed to consider concreteness in its analysis and
vacated the decision and remanded to the Ninth Circuit to consider
both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement.

"On May 31, 2016, the stay in the Miller matter was lifted.

"We are reviewing the impact on the Ramirez, Miller, Larson and
Patel matters and discussing next steps with plaintiffs' counsel
for each case in light of the Spokeo decision. We intend to
continue to defend these matters vigorously as we believe we have
acted in a lawful manner."


TRANSUNION: Court Certified National Class in "Henderson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that the
Court has certified a national class of individuals in the class
action lawsuit by Tyrone Henderson, et al.

In Tyrone Henderson, et al. v. TransUnion LLC and TransUnion
Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. (No. 3:14-cv-00679-JAG, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Richmond Division)), the plaintiffs have alleged that
TransUnion's process for mailing required notices to consumers at
the time it furnishes a consumer report for employment purposes
that contains adverse public record information violates the FCRA.
On May 3, 2016, the Court in Henderson certified a national class
of individuals with respect to these allegations.

"We intend to continue to defend this matter vigorously as we
believe we have acted in a lawful manner," the Company said.


UBER TECHNOLGIES: Seeks Consolidation of 11 TCPA Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Carmellia Calmese seeks transfer and consolidation of 11 suits
filed against Uber Technologies for alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 22, 2016, MDL
No. 2733.

The cases are: Calmese v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-cv-06277
(N.D. Ill.), Cubria v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16-cv-00544 (W.D.
Tex.), Charles Christopher Johnson v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16-
cv-05468 (N.D. Ill.), Matthew Johnson v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
16-cv-50113 (N.D. Ill.), Kafatos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 15-
cv-03727 (N.D. Cal.), Kolloukian v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 15-
cv-02856 (C.D. Cal.), Lainer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 15-cv-
09925 (C.D. Cal.), Lathrop et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 14-
cv-05678 (N.D. Cal.), Shaver v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16-cv-
22067 (S.D. Fla.), Vergara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 15-cv-06942
(N.D. Ill.) and Norman v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 3:16-cv-02907
(N.D. Cal.)

Calmese is represented by:

      Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
      McMORROW LAW, P.C.
      One North LaSalle Street, 44th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 265-0708
      Email: mike@mjmcmorrow.com


UNIGROUP INC: "Judge" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACK JUDGE, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNIGROUP, INC., MAYFLOWER TRANSIT,
LLC. and UNITED VAN LINES, LLC., Defendant, Case: 1:16-cv-06884
(N.D. Ill., June 30, 2016), seeks alleged unpaid minimum wages for
moving van operators of household and commercial goods under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mayflower Transit, LLC and United Van Lines, LLC are two of the
largest moving companies in the United States and have more than
600 agents operating in every region of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
     Caryn C. Lederer, Esq.
     HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
     70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 580-0100
     Fax: (312) 580-1994
     E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
             clederer@hsplegal.com

        - and -

     Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq.
     ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
     97 India Street
     Portland, ME 04101
     Phone: (207) 619-0320
     Fax: (207) 221-1029
     E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com


VALLEJO, CA: Faces "Mustard" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAT MUSTARD, BENJAMIN HILL, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, Case 2:16-cv-
01485-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal., June 30, 2016), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon,
liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Vallejo is the largest city in Solano County, California, United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David E. Mastagni, Esq.
     Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
     Ace T. Tate, Esq.
     MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
     1912 "I" Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811
     Phone: (916) 446-4692
     Fax: (916) 447-4614


VALVE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Illegal Betting
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Spicer, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that a Fairfield man has filed a lawsuit against a video game
company that he said works in conjunction with illegal offshore
gambling websites that take advantage of unsuspecting players.
Michael McLeod's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in
Connecticut, is a detailed look into the emerging world of high-
stakes wagering on video games.

Mr. McCleod, who is seeking class action status, said he had been
gambling on and playing "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive," a
first-person shooter game created by Washington State-based Valve
Corp., since 2014, when he was a teenager.  According to a variety
of websites, more than 3.3 million people play "Counter-Strike"
each month and the game is featured in a weekly show on TBS.

As video gaming has become more popular, so has wagering on
competitions.  A Bloomberg news investigation in April revealed
that more than 3 million people placed $2.3 billion in bets on
e-games in 2015.  That investigation alluded to potential legal
action that Mr. McLeod spelled out in his lawsuit regarding
unregulated gambling.

At issue are "skins," which are different types of designs for
weapons used in "Counter Strike."  The skins serve as a type of
currency, similar to casino chips, and can be bought, sold, traded
and wagered by players and nonplayers.  The gambling occurs
through offshore, third-party websites such as CSGO Lounge, CSGO
Diamonds and OPSkins.  People -- including those not involved in
playing that particular games of "Counter Strike" -- can bet on
the outcome of competitions.  Winners can convert skins directly
into cash through the third-party websites.

According to the lawsuit, the payoffs are filtered through PayPal
into accounts on Steam, a gaming website also owned by Valve.
The issue, Mr. McLeod said, lies with the third-party websites,
which he says are illegal, unregulated and, at times, dishonest.
Yet, he claims, Valve does business with them -- even providing
technology -- in return for a slice of the gambling proceeds.
"In sum, Valve owns the league, sells the casino chips, and
receives a piece of the casino's income stream through foreign
websites in order to maintain the charade that Valve is not
promoting and profiting from online gambling, like a modern-day
Captain Renault from 'Casablanca,'" according to the suit.
Mr. McLeod claims those in the class would be anyone who was led
to use Valve's sites based on "false and misleading advertisements
of fair play, and lack of information about having to compete
against players with inside information," according to the suit.

This sort of gambling is illegal within the United States, the
lawsuit claims.  "Valve has no license, permission or legal
authority to create and online gambling platform," the lawsuit
stated.  "Valve's affirmative actions both created this online
gambling system and allow it to continue."

Mr. McLeod is represented by Neal Moskow of Ury & Moskow in
Fairfield, Paul Whalen of New York, and attorneys Jasper Ward,
Alex Davis and Patrick Walsh in Kentucky.  "The goal of our class
action is to protect consumers, and this was something that is an
unregulated online market with third-party websites based oversea
or with unknown origins," said Mr. Ward, who is also the lead
plaintiffs' counsel in the nationwide lawsuit against the fantasy
sports site Draft Kings.  "This affects a lot of people. The
difference between ['Counter-Strike'] and Draft Kings is that this
is mostly teenagers. Parents don't really know what's going on"
with the wagering.

The suit is seeking an unspecified amount in damages and does not
say how much money Mr. McLeod has lost or earned during his time
playing and watching the games.  The suit claims Valve benefitted
from unjust enrichment, was involved in racketeering, and violated
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.  There is no counsel
listed yet for the Valve Corp.

"This unregulated market is ripe for scams, cheating, fraud and
other harms to users," according to the complaint.  "For instance,
there have been numerous instances of match-fixing in ['Counter-
Strike'] matches."  In January 2015, according to the suit, a
highly qualified team of "Counter-Strike" players fixed matches
against lesser teams, which resulted in seven players being banned
from the Valve-sponsored events and from gambling on matches.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Klein Class Action for $10 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------
Luxury Daily reports that automotive group Volkswagen has reached
a $10 billion class action settlement after the brand falsified
emissions data on nearly half a million diesel models sold in the
United States.

The Gregg Klein v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. case was
filed in federal court in September 2015, days after the automaker
copped to deceiving U.S. regulators and consumers.  The emissions
scandal impacted not only Volkswagen branded diesel vehicles, but
also its high-end offerings such as Porsche and Audi, which are
owned by the group (see story).

Paying up

The case against Volkswagen was filed by MLG Automotive Law and
includes a number of "tag-along cases" that were consolidated into
one class action suit.  The case was overseen by the Honorable
Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California.

On June 28, MLG and Volkswagen reached a historic settlement of
$10 billion.  The settlement is the largest automotive class
action settlement in U.S. history.

Per the settlement agreement, Volkswagen will buyback or modify
approximately 500,000 affected vehicles.  The auto group will also
have to pay consumers a civil penalty of at least $5,100 for each
car purchased and $1,529 for vehicles that were leased.

Valued at more than $15 billion, the settlement only resolves
class action claims for consumers who drove 2.0-liter diesel
engines in the U.S. market.  The case does not resolve the claims
brought by owners of 3.0-liter engines.  A U.S. dealership class
action suit is also not resolved by this settlement.

Volkswagen vehicles sold outside the U.S. are not part of the
class action settlement either.

"[The class action settlement] marks a historic day in our
nation's jurisprudence," said Jonathan Michaels, founding member
of MLG Automotive Law, in a statement.

"Not only is this the largest settlement of its kind in U.S.
history, but manufacturers are finally being told that there are
severe consequences for deceiving the public," he said.  "We look
forward to continuing to support the claims of the dealers and the
3.0-liter owners, both of whom were not involved in [the June 28]
settlement."

Volkswagen has shared the link across its social media accounts to
keep its consumers updated.

In recent weeks, the auto industry has seen a number of lawsuits
filed.

For example, U.S. electric automaker Tesla Motors is under fire
for a term in a goodwill agreement related to a potentially faulty
suspension.

Consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman is investigating the
agreement, which allegedly restricts the rights of owners in the
event of defects or other wrongdoings on the part of Tesla.
Mandatory silences are becoming a more common tactic among
businesses and have a history in the automotive sector, but the
allegations contradict Tesla's transparent and responsible image.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canadian Vehicle Owners Await Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Mandel, writing for National Observer, reports that
Waqes Mubarik found out he was one of the unlucky ones in 2015
when the Volkswagen scandal broke out.  His 2015 Passat diesel was
equipped with one of the so-called defeat devices designed to
cheat on emissions tests.

"I've been a loyal customer to Volkswagen for years," the
physician's assistant said on the phone from Barrie, Ontario.
"This is my fourth Volkswagen and, honestly, I felt betrayed."

Volkswagen admitted last fall that it used defeat devices on
nearly 500,000 diesel cars sold in the U.S. and about 100,000
vehicles sold in Canada between 2009 and 2015.

The devices were designed to fool government labs during indoor
testing, hiding the fact that Volkswagen vehicles were spewing up
to 40 times more toxic pollution than advertised.

While the German auto manufacturer announced a massive settlement
worth more than $15-billion in the United States on June 28,
Canadians like Mr. Murbarik are still waiting to hear of any news
at all from Volkswagen in Canada.

Mr. Mubarik is just one of the some 100,000 Canadians who are in
the dark about the value of their vehicles and what kind of
compensation they might expect from a company that's deeply
disappointed them.

At the same time, Canadian courts are beginning to sort out a
tangle of class actions over the car company.  Some 39 class
action suits have been filed across Canada, with more than several
to a province.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Mubarik has signed on to one of them while
he awaits word from Volkswagen and wonders what will become of his
car.

Stuck with a lemon

The news has been scant.  Volkswagen sent Mr. Mubarik a $1,000
Mastercard gift card.  Of that $500 must be spent at a Volkswagen
dealership.  And he received an email months ago saying they're
working on the issue and apologizing.  But since then -- nothing.

The gift card offered little solace to Mr. Mubarik, who says his
car's market value has dropped by more than 20 per cent since he
bought it.  The $28,000 vehicle isn't even a year old.
Mr. Mubarik says it's currently valued at $12,000.  Not only that,
but he's still making payments on it.

And he has other concerns. Soon he'll need to renew his license
and while the Ontario government has reassured consumers that
vehicles will not fail their emissions tests because of
Volkswagen's defeat device, he wonders if that might not change
later on.

As well, he notes the U.S. settlement includes an offer for the
car company to buy back the vehicles at their market value before
the Dieselgate scandal while considering the mileage on the car.

"So the longer they drag the settlement, the more mileage we're
going to put on the car and the less value we'll get for it,"
Mubarik said.

Like Mr. Mubarik, Ken Wilson believes he's stuck with a lemon.
The Regina university associate professor owns a Golf diesel he
bought in 2010, paying $30,000 for the vehicle, which he noted
cost far more than a Golf with a gas engine.

"The reason we bought it was we were told it would help us cut
emissions," Mr. Wilson said.  "We didn't realize we were belching
out nitrogen oxide out of the tail pipe instead."

Mr. Wilson hasn't head from Volkswagen since January when the
company sent a letter saying they were working on the problem.
That's the last he heard beyond an emailed coupon for an oil
change and an offer from the dealer for $3,000 toward a trade-in.

"It didn't feel like very much to get an extra $3,000 on a car
that's been devalued by more than that," Mr. Wilson said.

Mr. Wilson has also signed on to a class action suit.

One law firm alone has filed nine class action suits

In an email, Thomas Tetzlaff, media relations manager for
Volkswagen Group of Canada, said that while settlement terms in
the U.S. may be a consideration for discussions in Canada, the
details from the American court proceedings may not apply.

The company hopes to provide remedies to Canadians on pace with
U.S. customers, Mr. Tetzlaff wrote, and reiterated Volkswagen's
message to consumers that parties involved in class actions hope
to provide a settlement update to Canadian courts on or before
July 29, 016.

Mr. Tetzlaff wrote that once the parties to a class action
proceeding reach a settlement, the affected customers will be
informed and the court will then schedule a hearing to approve the
settlement.

How and when that happens could be some time coming.

Tony Merchant, principal in the Merchant Law Group LLP
headquartered in Regina, said currently judges across Canada are
trying to determine which law suits will be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Merchant's office alone has filed nine class actions against
Volkswagen across Canada. Those suits represent close to 11,000
people.  "It's a huge number of people to have contacted us in
advance of public advertising," the lawyer noted.

As well, Mr. Merchant's office has launched actions for another
600 individuals and potentially has actions pending for 500 more.

The class action seeks what the individual actions seek: damages
for wrong-doing, Mr. Merchant said.  But what form those might
take could be complex.

"We think that the amount of money that each individual should
receive is different, depending on the year, the make and use of
their vehicle, and that's why the individual actions,"
Mr. Merchant said.

"Driving the dirtiest pig on the road"

As well the lawyer is advocating for an as-of-yet-to-be-determined
punishment outside of any proposed settlement.  He said Volkswagen
should face "a societal slap of additional fines."

Any punitive damages would be divided among the car owners.

"I can't do justice to expressing how furious all sorts of people
were. Many of them were buying these vehicles because they thought
they had a more environmentally friendly vehicle.

"They thought they were doing something good for the world and
they find out they've been driving the dirtiest pig on the road."

Back in Barrie, Mr. Mubarik believes his decision to buy a
Volkswagen was a poor one.

"I got stuck with a car and I'm still making payments on it and I
don't know if I will be able to sell it after or not because
nobody will buy it."

But in Regina, Mr.Wilson hasn't ruled out buying another car from
the German manufacturer again; his wife wouldn't mind owning a
Beetle.

"But they're going to have to convince us that that's the company
we want to buy from again."


VOLKSWAGEN: U.S. Justice Dep't Gathers Emissions Scandal Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher and Michael Biesecker, writing for The Associated
Press, report that the U.S. Justice Department is working closely
with German investigators to gather evidence for potential
criminal charges in the Volkswagen emissions-cheating scandal, a
top official said on June 28.

Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said investigators are looking
at "multiple companies and multiple individuals" in the probe, but
she did not identify any of them at a news conference to announce
a settlement of up to $15.3 billion in the case involving VW
diesel cars that cheated on emissions tests.

Ms. Yates also wouldn't comment on whether U.S. investigators had
been successful in navigating Germany's strict privacy laws to get
such crucial documents as internal company emails.

One company that could be involved in the probe is German auto
parts supplier Bosch, which has extensive North American
operations.  Elizabeth Cabraser, the lead attorney for car owners
that are suing VW, said on June 28 that civil claims can continue
against Bosch, which made the "defeat devices" that turned
pollution controls on during Environmental Protection Agency lab
tests and turned them off on real roads.  That allowed the cars to
emit more pollution while being driven.

A spokeswoman for Robert Bosch LLC in suburban Detroit said there
is no criminal investigation against the company in the U.S., but
a probe in Germany was announced several months ago.

Bosch sold a large number of engine control computers to VW for
its diesel engines, and the company is one of the world's biggest
suppliers of fuel injection technology, spokeswoman Linda
Beckmeyer said.  The engine control computers handle emissions
controls, among other tasks.

The Justice Department began investigating last fall after the
cheating was uncovered.

Investigators also have contacted German automaker Daimler AG,
maker of Mercedes-Benz cars, seeking information on "possible
indications of irregularities" in emissions certification.

A Daimler spokesman said in April that the company is doing an
internal investigation of its exhaust emissions.

U.S. owners of Daimler's Mercedes-Benz BlueTEC diesels have filed
a class-action lawsuit claiming the cars are programmed in a way
that lets them emit illegal levels of emissions, similar to
diesels made by Volkswagen.

Daimler says the lawsuit's claims are without merit and that the
Justice Department investigation is unrelated.


WALT DISNEY BENEFIT PLANS: Sued Over Pension Fund Mismanagement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Du Vall, individually and as a representative of a class
of similarly situated plan participants, on behalf of the Disney
Savings and Investment Plan, Plaintiff, v. The Investment and
Administrative Committee of The Walt Disney Company Sponsored
Qualified Benefit Plans and Key Employees Deferred Compensation
and Retirement Plan, Jay Rasulo, Christine McCarthy, Alan
Braverman, Brent Woodford, Jonathan Headley, Jayne Parker, and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04743
(C.D. Cal, June 28, 2016), was filed due to losses to the Plan
resulting from Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties,
including loss of vested benefits to the Plans resulting from
imprudent investment of the Plans assets.  The complaint seeks
restoration of all plan profits, enjoinment from further breaches,
actual damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other applicable laws,
equitable restitution and other appropriate equitable and
injunctive relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

Defendants invested the assets in the Disney Savings and
Investment Plan in The Sequoia Fund, a high-cost mutual fund run
by Adviser Ruane, Cunniff & Goldbarb and its Portfolio Managers,
Robert D. Goldfarb and David M. Poppe. The Fund Managers
concentrated the Fund's assets in a single stock, Valeant
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. despite the policy of having at least three
investment funds into which they could invest their retirement
savings.

Valeant's stock had already dropped by over 88 percent in less
than a year and has shed an additional 20 percent since then.
Because of its concentration in Valeant and its fees, the Fund
underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, by 6.14% in 2014,
8.68% in 2015, and 15.17% from January 1 through June 15, 2016.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter K. Stris, Esq.
      Victor O'Connell, Esq
      Thomas E. Logan, Esq.
      STRIS & MAHER LLP
      725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 995-6800
      Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
      Email: peter.stris@strismaher.com
             victor.oconnell@strismaher.com
             tom.logan@strismaher.com


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Bid to Dismiss "Epstein" Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the
the time for the Company to respond to the Lead Plaintiff's motion
for class certification has not yet expired.

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein Putative
Class Action"), against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25,
2013 and March 12, 2014.

Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and
several other motions have been filed in the proceedings. The
complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) the Company made
false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other
public statements in violation of federal securities laws
preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13,
2014 that it had received above-referenced CID from the CFPB (ii)
the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated because
of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating to its
accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings
and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among other things,
the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and
Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015.

The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015,
unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit.

On January 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The Lead Plaintiff has filed a response in
opposition, the Company filed a reply in further support of its
motion to dismiss, and the Company's motion to dismiss is
currently pending before the Court.

The time for the Company to respond to the Lead Plaintiff's motion
for class certification has not yet expired.


XURA INC: Israeli Optionholder Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Xura, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the
Israeli Optionholder Class Action.

CTI and certain of its former subsidiaries, including Xura Ltd.
(formerly Xura Ltd., a subsidiary of the Company), were named as
defendants in four potential class action litigations in the State
of Israel involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result
of purported negligence or breach of contract due to previously-
settled allegations regarding illegal backdating of CTI options
that allegedly prevented certain current or former employees from
exercising certain stock options. The Company intends to
vigorously defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Xura Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The
Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees. By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases. On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action. The
defendants responded to this amended complaint on November 11,
2012, and the plaintiffs filed a further reply on December 20,
2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on December 25,
2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to settle the
dispute through mediation.

The mediation process ended without success. According to the
parties' consent to submit summations in the motion to certify the
claims as a class action (the "Motion to Certify"), including the
certification of the class of plaintiffs, the court held the
following dates for submission of summations: Summations on behalf
of the plaintiffs were submitted on August 31, 2014; Summations on
behalf of the defendants were submitted on November 20, 2014; and
summations of response by the plaintiffs were submitted on
December 30, 2014. On February 9, 2015, the Judge presiding over
the case recused herself due to a conflict of interests. On March
30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to the Court seeking to
have the case assigned to a new presiding Judge and as a result on
April 4, 2015 a new presiding judge was assigned to the case. The
parties are now waiting for the Court's decision on the Motion to
Certify.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively. The Katriel
litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009,
against Xura Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number
4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd.
The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and
both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court.
These cases have been consolidated with the Tel Aviv District
Court cases discussed.

The Company has not accrued for these matters as the potential
loss is currently not probable or estimable.

Xura, Inc. (formerly known as Comverse, Inc.) (the "Company") was
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc. ("CTI"). On
October 31, 2012, CTI completed the spin-off of the Company as an
independent, publicly traded company, accomplished by means of a
pro rata distribution of 100% of our outstanding common shares to
CTI's shareholders (such transaction referred to as the "Share
Distribution"). Following the Share Distribution, CTI no longer
held any of our outstanding capital stock, and we became an
independent publicly-traded company. Effective September 9, 2015,
the Company changed its name from Comverse, Inc. to Xura, Inc. The
Company was organized as a Delaware corporation in November 1997.
The Company is a global provider of digital communications
solutions for communication service providers ("CSPs"),
enterprises and application providers.


YAHOO INC: Must Face Class Action Over Unsolicited SMS Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that earlier this
year, federal judge in Illinois ruled that Yahoo must face a
class-action lawsuit for allegedly sending unsolicited SMS
messages to some Sprint customers.

Yahoo is now asking U.S. District Court Judge Manish Shah to
rethink that ruling in light of the Supreme Court's recent
decision in a lawsuit brought by a consumer against the online
data broker Spokeo.

The battle centers on a Yahoo Messenger feature that converts
instant messages into text messages. Two consumers -- Rachel
Johnson and Zenaida Calderin -- alleged in court papers that they
received at least two messages through that feature.  They said
one of the messages came from other users, while the other -- a
"Welcome" message from Yahoo -- explained the first one.  The
lawsuit deals only with the "Welcome" messages.

Ms. Johnson and Ms. Calderin alleged that Yahoo violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits companies from
using automated dialers to text people without their consent.

Ms. Calderin sought to serve as class representative for T-Mobile
users who received messages from Yahoo in April of 2014, while Ms.
Johnson sought to serve as representative for Sprint users in
March of 2013.

The judge rejected Ms. Calderin's request because she allegedly
consented to Yahoo's terms of service, which provided that the
company might send SMS messages to people.  But Judge Shah found
that Johnson, who did not agree to Yahoo's terms of service, was
typical of other Sprint customers and could serve as their class
representative.

Yahoo now says the case should be dismissed based on the Supreme
Court's recent decision in a lawsuit against Spokeo.  The court
ruled in that case that an Illinois resident could only sue Spokeo
for allegedly displaying incorrect information about him if he
could prove the errors caused a "concrete" injury.

"A plaintiff must demonstrate that a purported statutory violation
caused her to suffer an injury in fact -- specifically, an injury
that is both concrete and particularized," Yahoo writes.  "Johnson
has suffered neither."

Yahoo argues that Johnson wasn't harmed by the messages, given
that the phone belonged to her employer, who was on an unlimited
data plan.

"There was no incremental charge for the receipt of any text,
including the Welcome Message -- neither the subscriber nor
Johnson was charged for Johnson's receipt of the Welcome Message,"
Yahoo writes in court papers filed on June 28.

It is beyond dispute that unsolicited automated telephone calls
made in violation of the TCPA cause a privacy injury.

Ms. Johnson counters that the Yahoo injured her in several ways.
Among others, Yahoo allegedly "caused a nuisance and wasted
plaintiff's time," and also "occupied the memory of plaintiff's
cellular device."

Judge Shah will hold a hearing about the matter on July 22.


                            *********

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  * * *