CAR_Public/160719.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 143




                            Headlines


230FA LLC: "Mora" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Tips
ABC CORP: "Xiang" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Sept. 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ALABAMA: Judge Grants Permanent Injunction Bid in "Strawser"

AMERICAN CENTURY: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Insurance Coverage
AT&T CORPORATION: Faces "Meron" Suit in N.D. Cal.
AUTOMATED COLLECTION: Scifo Seeks Certification of Classes
AVID LIFE: Faces FTC Scrutiny Amid Data Breach MDL

BALTIMORE, MD: Maintenance Workers Face Charges Amid Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Interest Rate Swap Conspiracy
BLUE SHIELD: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Erroneous Claims Payments
BLUEFIELD REGIONAL: "McGuire" Suit Moved to S.D. W. Virg.
BLUEMERCURY INC: Hamilton Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct.
BOHEMIAN GROVE: Settles Employees' Class Action for $7 Million
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Compensation System
CAREMARK RX: August 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CAREPLUS HEALTH: Evidence Supporting Class Cert. Bid Filed

CASH STORE: Payday Loan Claims Period Open Until October 31
CIRAOLO-KLEPPER: "Depolo" Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction
CITIZENS BANK: Settles TCPA Class Action for $4.5 Million
COLORADO: Settles Inmates' Class Action Over Fresh Air Access
COOPER CITY, FL: Fire Assessment Fees Violate Law, Judge Rules

CORELOGIC INC: Judge Tosses Novel Copyright Class Action
CRAIG HAMILTON: Rowe Seeks Certification of Painters Class
CRYPTSY: Paul Vernon Regrets Not Sounding Alarm
CUNA MUTUAL: Court Preliminary Approved Settlement Class
DANK LANDSCAPE: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Law

DEL CITY WIRE: Faces Bones Suit in D. Conn.
DETROIT, MI: Davis Seeks Certification of Marijuana Users Class
DEUTSCHE BANK: Non-Responsive Plaintiffs Tossed From "McZeal"
FACEBOOK INC: Biometrics Suit Outcome May Impact Other Companies
FORT WAYNE, IN: Rietdorf Appeals N.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Circuit

GARDEN APARTMENTS: "Rincon" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement Payout Begins in Gas Mileage Case
GOOGLE INC: EEOC Investigates Discrimination Complaints
HOMERO GARZA: September 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
HYPER NETWORK: Faces "Gorgis" Suit in S.D. Cal.

KRISPY KREME: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
LENDING CLUB: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Action
LIPOCINE INC: "Morassi" Sues Over Share Price Drop
LIPOCINE INC: August 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LOANME INC.: Faces "Goggans" Suit in C.D. Cal.

LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Faces Class Action Over Flint Water Crisis
LOS ANGELES, CA: Chua Seeks Certification of Class & Sub-classes
MASTERCARD: Faces Class Action in UK Over "Interchange" Fees
MDL 1360: Court Granted Former Exec's Bid to Enforce Injunction
MERCHANTS ADJUSTMENT: Faces "McDonald" Suit in S.D. Ala.

MLS PLAYERS: Yedline's Valuation May Rise Following Class Action
NEW INDUSTRIES: "Lawrence" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
NEW ORLEANS: Court Wants "Yarls" Complaint Amended
NEW YORK: Bharara Mum on NYCHA Mold Remediation Case
PEARLS GROUP: Indian Investors to Launch Fraud Class Action

PERSOLVE LLC: Class Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
PFIZER INC: Agrees to Disclose Addiction Risks in Opioid Drugs
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Class Action Lawsuits Pending in Texas
PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Appeals Ruling in "Rodriguez" Class Suit
QUALITY EGG: Appeals Court Upholds Executives' Jail Sentences

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action in New York
RITE AID: 10 Stockholder Class Actions Pending
RITE AID: Delaware Consolidated Action Dismissed
RITE AID: M.D. Pa. Court Stayed "Herring" Class Action
RITE AID: Discovery Ongoing in Indergit Class Action in N.Y.

RITE AID: Defending California Wage and Hour Class Action
RITE AID: Settlement Funds Disbursed in Chase and Scherwin Suit
RITE AID: September 16 Status Conference in "Hall" Case
ROINS PRODUCE: "Solano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SALSA AND BEER: "Velasquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Noonan" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SCHMIDT BAKING: "Schilling" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
SEATTLE SERVICE: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Thornell" Class Suit
SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Sexually Explicit Content
SOUTH CAROLINA: To Notify Inmates of Mental Health Settlement

SPREADS PARK: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
STAAR SURGICAL: Law Firm Investigates Possible Securities Claims
STANDARD MORTGAGE: Judge Dismissed RICO Claims in "Robinson" Suit
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: "Stone" Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Waitresses Win Class Action Over Pay Practices

THERANOS: Faces Congressional Probe Over Faulty Blood Tests
TREASURY WINE: Court Stays Second Shareholder Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid "Reporting Pay"
UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Action Ruling in Army Corps Case
URBAN OUTFITTERS: October 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

USRG CALIFORNIA: Faces "Davis" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VALVE CORPORATION: Faces "C.B." Suit in S.D. Fla.
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Ordered to Provide Emissions Info in Australia
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Escapes Emission Cheating Fines in Germany
WALGREENS BOOTS: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal

WALGREENS BOOTS: Still Defends Illinois Shareholder Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action for $16.3 Million
WENDY'S CO: Hackers Steal Customers' Credit, Debit Card Data
WORD ENTERPRISES: "McFarlin" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: To Settle Reyes Action for $37.5 Million

* ABA Wants CFPB to Examine Cost, Benefit of Arbitration Rule
* Cape Coral Property Owners Mull Pollution, Tax Class Action
* Copyright Trolls Abuse Canada's "Notice-and-Notice" System
* Insurance Cos. May Help Homeowners with Foundation Problems
* Merchants Face Consumers Suits Following EMV-Chip Card Shift

* New White-Collar Overtime Rules Burdensome for Companies


                            *********


230FA LLC: "Mora" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Tips
-----------------------------------------------------
Alberto Mora, Rosendo Hernandez, Jose Encarnacion and Cynthia
Gitonga, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other similarly-
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. 230FA LLC d/b/a 230 Fifth
Avenue, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05349 (S.D. N.Y. July 6,
2016), seeks minimum wages, recovery of gratuities, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Mora has been employed by Defendant as a busser; Hernandez and
Encarnacion as runners; while Gitonga was employed as a Server.

230FA LLC is a New York limited liability company operating a
restaurant and bar located at 230 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York
10001.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
     Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
     85 Fifth Avenue
     New York, NY 10003
     Telephone: (212) 257-6800
     Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
     Email: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
            trahman@wigdorlaw.com
            ahartzband@wigdorlaw.com


ABC CORP: "Xiang" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------
Xiang Guo Yin a.k.a Kevin, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABC Corp. d/b/a
Matsuri, Zi Qiao Cao, Kimming M. Cheng, Shirley Li, John and Jane
Doe No. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01135 (D. Conn., July
5, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages, statutory minimum wage pay,
unpaid wages for overtime work, liquidated damages, declaratory
relief, costs, interest and attorneys fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

ABC Corp. owns and operates Matsuri, a restaurant located at 390
Post Rd., Darien Connecticut 06820 where Plaintiff worked as a
delivery man.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Tel: 718.353.8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit came to an agreement in principle to settle
the Denver Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "As previously disclosed in our filings under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015 (filed on April 19, 2016), two
securities class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain
of our current and former officers in the federal district court
in Denver, Colorado in May of 2014. On February 19, 2015, the
Court consolidated the cases and appointed the United Foods and
Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers
Tri-State Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and approved its
selection of law firms. The consolidated case is now captioned
United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions
Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D.
Colo.) (the "Denver Securities Litigation"). Lead plaintiff filed
"Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint" on
April 20, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint"), to which Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 19, 2015. On May 16, 2016, lead
plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint."

"The lead plaintiff in the Denver Securities Litigation alleges
that ADES and the other defendants misrepresented to the investing
public ADES's financial condition and its financial controls to
artificially inflate and maintain the market price of ADES's
common stock. The Second Amended Complaint alleges claims for
relief for: 1) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and 2) control person liability
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified monetary damages together with costs and attorneys'
fees incurred in prosecuting the class action, among other relief,
and alleges a class period covering all purchasers or acquirers of
the common stock of ADES or its predecessor-in-interest during the
proposed class period from May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015.

"Defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint on June 19, 2015, contending that the Consolidated
Complaint: 1) fails to meet the strict pleading standards required
for Section 10(b) claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary
violation required for any claim of secondary (control person)
liability. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to this
motion on July 2, 2015 and Defendants filed their reply brief on
July 16, 2015. On March 7, 2016 the parties filed a stipulated
motion to stay the case while the parties mediate the matter. On
March 8, 2016, the motion to stay was granted, and the Defendants'
motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice with the option to
refile should mediation fail. The case is presently stayed until
further order of the court.

"Following the mediation, which occurred in May of 2016, the
parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the Denver
Securities Litigation, and on June 30, 2016, the parties entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Denver
Settlement") to resolve the action in its entirety. Under the
terms of the Denver Settlement, a payment of $4.0 million will be
made in exchange for the release of claims against the defendants
and other released parties by the lead plaintiff and all
settlement class members, and for the dismissal of the action with
prejudice. The Denver Settlement remains subject to the approval
of the court. Prior to any final court approval of the Denver
Settlement, potential settlement class members (i.e., all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock
during May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015 ((both dates
inclusive), with limited exclusions), will have an opportunity to
exclude themselves from participating in the Denver Settlement or
to raise objections with the court regarding the Denver Settlement
or any part thereof. On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs in the
Denver Securities Litigation filed the Denver Settlement and
related exhibits with the court and moved, among other things, for
the court to preliminarily approve the Denver Settlement, to
approve the contents and procedures for notice to potential
settlement class members, to certify the Denver Securities
Litigation as a class action for settlement purposes only, and to
schedule a hearing for the court to consider final approval of the
Denver Settlement.

"The Denver Settlement contains no admission of liability, and all
of the defendants in the Denver Securities Litigation have
expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing or improper conduct. If the Denver Settlement is
approved by the Court, our insurance carriers will fund the $4.0
million Denver Settlement. In the event the Denver Settlement is
not approved by the court or otherwise does not become effective
for any reason, the Denver Settlement will become null and void,
all things of value will be returned to the party providing them,
and the case will move forward. Under those circumstances, all of
the defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously
against the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint."


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Sept. 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Aerohive Networks, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

In re AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC.
SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

Master File No. CIV 534070
CLASS ACTION
Assigned for All Purposes to
Hon. Marie S. Weiner
DEPT: 2
DATE ACTION FILED: 06/02/15

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:     ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES ("PERSONS") THAT PURCHASED
AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC. ("AEROHIVE" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK
PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS
ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH AEROHIVE'S MARCH 27, 2014 INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING ("IPO")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
September 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marie S.
Weiner at the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
Department 2, Courtroom 2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA
94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 4, 2016
("Stipulation") of the above-captioned action ("Litigation") for
$5,750,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as
defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below); (3) to pay Plaintiffs for
their time and expenses they incurred in representing the Class in
this Litigation out of the Settlement Fund; and (4) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate.

This Litigation is a securities class action brought on behalf of
those Persons who purchased the common stock of Aerohive pursuant
or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
("Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
March 27, 2014 IPO during the period beginning on
March 27, 2014 and ending on September 23, 2014 ("Class Members"),
against Aerohive, certain of its key executives and directors, and
underwriters of Aerohive's IPO (collectively, "Defendants") for
alleged misstatements and omissions of material facts in the
Registration Statement filed with the SEC in connection with the
IPO, concerning, among other things, the alleged technological
deficiencies in the Company's products, increasing competition,
and employee turnover that was allegedly impacting sales.
Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED AEROHIVE COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO
THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE SEC IN
CONNECTION WITH THE COMPANY'S MARCH 27, 2014 IPO, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
submit a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by
mail (postmarked no later than September 27, 2016) or
electronically no later than September 27, 2016.  Your failure to
submit your Proof of Claim by September 27, 2016, will subject
your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the
recovery in connection with the settlement of this Litigation.  If
you are a Member of the Class and do not request exclusion, you
will be bound by the settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the settlement or exclude
yourself from the Class), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain
these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which,
among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms
used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents,
online at www.aerohivesecuritieslitigation.com, or by contacting:

Aerohive Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 30216
College Station, TX  77842-3216
Phone:  1-844-206-5871

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.  Inquiries may also be made to a
representative of Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Shareholder Relations
Rick Nelson
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 1-800-449-4900

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN
SEPTEMBER 9, 2016, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE
CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE LITIGATION
EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE
PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES.  ANY OBJECTIONS
MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND COPIES SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL BY
SEPTEMBER 9, 2016, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED:  June 8, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER


ALABAMA: Judge Grants Permanent Injunction Bid in "Strawser"
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Callie V. Granade of the Southern District
of Alabama, Southern Division, ruled on the parties' motions in
the case, JAMES N. STRAWSER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUTHER
STRANGE, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the
State of Alabama, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-0424-CG-
C (S.D. Ala.)

Judge Don Davis asked the court for permission to withdraw as
representative of the defendant class and for his counsel to
withdraw as class counsel because he does not want to continue to
represent the class or pay expenses associated with litigating the
case.

Plaintiffs moved for entry of a permanent injunction based on the
Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges 135 S.Ct.
2584(2015), upholding the court's findings in its preliminary
injunction order.

Attorney General Luther Strange moved to dismiss the case as moot
because a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of
Alabama's marriage laws have already issued and the Attorney
General continues to remain in full compliance with it.

Defendants Judge Tim Russell and Judge Davis also argue that the
case is moot in their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for
permanent injunction.  Russell contends that he has been issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same priority and in
the same manner as those licenses are issued to couples of the
opposite sex.  Davis also argues that Alabama probate judges have
complied with the reasoning of the Obergefell ruling.

Plaintiffs conversely argue that none of the defendants'
assurances provide plaintiffs or the members of the plaintiff
class with a formal, enforceable order should the Attorney General
or a future Attorney General or other defendants violate the
court's injunction or fail to fully recognize marriages validly
entered into in Alabama or elsewhere.

Senior District Judge Granade denied Judge Davis's motion to
withdraw as class representative and for his counsel to withdraw
as class counsel, and denied the motion of Attorney General
Strange to dismiss. Plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction
and final judgment is granted.

A copy of Senior District Judge Granade's order dated June 7,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/jt2vSMfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher F. Stoll --
CStoll@NCLRights.org -- Shannon P. Minter -- SMinter@NCLRights.org
-- at National Center for Lesbian Rights; David Dinielli -- Scott
D. McCoy at Southern Poverty Law Center; Heather Rene Fann at
Boyd, Fernambucq, Dunn & Fann, P.C.; Randall C. Marshall at ACLU
of Alabama Foundation, Inc.; Richard B. Katskee --
americansunited@au.org -- at Americans United for Separation of
Church and State Luther Strange, Defendant, represented by James
W. Davis, Office of the Attorney General, Laura Elizabeth Howell &
Andrew L. Brasher

Don Davis, Defendant, represented by:

Joseph Michael Druhan, Jr., Esq.
Harry V. Satterwhite, Esq.
Satterwhite, Druhan & Tyler, L.L.C.
1325 Dauphin Street
Mobile, AL 36604
Telephone: 251-432-8120
Facsimile: 251-405-0147

     - and -

Mark S. Boardman, Esq.
Clay Richard Carr, Esq.
Teresa Bearden Petelos, Esq.
Boardman, Carr, Bennett, Watkins, Hill & Gamble, P.C.
400 Boardman Dr.
Chelsea, AL 35043
Telephone: 205-678-8000

     - and -

Lee L. Hale, Esq.
Hale and Hughes
501 Church St.
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: 251-432-1982

Tim Russell, Defendant, represented by Jamie Helen Kidd --
jkidd@webbeley.com -- Kendrick E. Webb -- kwebb@webbeley.com -- at
Webb & Eley, P.C.; John David Whetstone


AMERICAN CENTURY: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Davis, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that two
former American Century Investments employees have sued the Kansas
City-based mutual fund company, saying their retirement plan
charged "excessive fees" while offering "chronically under-
performing" American Century funds as choices.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, said a
"disloyal and imprudent process" led the 401(k) plan to offer only
American Century funds and shares of American Century itself as
investment choices.

As a result, employees' accounts were "laden with high cost,
proprietary mutual funds" that would not have survived a selection
process that was "not tainted by self interest," the lawsuit said.
It said putting American Century-managed funds in the 401(k) plan
generated revenues for American Century, though lower-cost
alternatives were available.

The lawsuit complained about the American Century Vista and
American Century International Bond funds as examples of
"chronically under-performing" funds left in the plan as options
for employees.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status for the 2,250 or so
participants in the 401(k) plan.  Former employees Steve Wildman
and Jon Borcherding sued on behalf of the others in the plans.

American Century, in an emailed statement, rejected the claims and
said it was proud of contributing to employees' retirements.

"The lawsuit is entirely without merit, and we will mount a
vigorous defense," American Century said.  "We offer our employees
competitive compensation and a generous benefits package, which
includes our retirement plan. The plan provides employees with a
wide range of investment options and is managed in the best
interests of participants."

American Century said the retirement plan offers brokerage account
access to other investment options.

Financial planners tell consumers to closely watch fees on their
investments as even relatively small differences in fees can add
up to large changes in an account's balance over the many years
that a retirement account invests.

Carl Engstrom, an associate attorney with the Nichols Kaster law
firm representing the former employees, said the lawsuit is
similar to suits against some other money management companies.
His firm has represented clients suing Putnam Investments and
Allianz Asset Management, which owns the Pimco group.

The lawsuit against American Century challenged a committee that
selected investment choices for the company's 401(k) plan. It said
the committee members worked at American Century and allowed their
choices to be "influenced by their desire to drive revenues and
profits" to American Century.

Defendants named in the suit include the members of the committee,
several unidentified members and past members listed as John Does,
and several entities that form American Century.

Six counts in the lawsuit include the claim that various
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence, failed to monitor fiduciaries, and engaged in prohibited
transactions with a party in interest and with a fiduciary.

In addition to establishing the case as a class action, the
lawsuit asks the court to order restitution to the class members,
disgorgement of revenues by American Century and other relief.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Parker, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio
residents similarly situated, v. American Family Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01709 (Ohio Com. Pleas, July
5, 2016), seeks damages and further relief that is just and
appropriate for breach of contract.

Plaintiff alleges American Family of systematically adjusting
practices to deny coverage of the actual cash value of property
damage suffered by its insured, thereby denying them the full
amount of indemnity by depreciating the labor component of repair
costs instead of only the physical item that is subject to wear,
tear, and obsolescence.

The house owned by Parker suffered property damage. The floors
were damaged and required repair and restoration. Said home was
insured by the Defendant.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. DeRoche, Esq.
      Stuart I. Garson, Esq.
      GARSON JOHNSON LLC
      1600 Midland Building
      101 West Prospect Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Phone: (216) 696-9330
      Fax: (216) 696-8558
      Email: ideroche@garson.com

             - and -

      R. Eric Kennedy, Esq.
      Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
      WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
      1600 Midland Building
      101 Prospect Ave., W.
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216)781-1111
      Fax: (216)781-6747
      Email: ekeuuedv@weismanlaw.com
             dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
      DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
      60 South Park Place
      Painesville, OH 44077
      Phone: (440) 352-3391
      Fax: (440) 352-3469
      Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com


AT&T CORPORATION: Faces "Meron" Suit in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Corporation.
The case is captioned Simon Meron, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff,
v. AT&T Corporation, a New York corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-03739-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2016). The assigned
Magistrate Judge is Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley.

AT&T provides voice, video, and data communications services to
businesses, consumers, and governments worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq
          ILG LEGAL OFFICE
          555 California Street, Suite 4925
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone (415) 580 2574
          Facsimile: (415) 735 3454
          E-mail: silg@employment-lawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donald M. Falk, Esq.
          Elspeth Victoria Hansen, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331 2030
          Facsimile: (650) 331 2060
          E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com
                  elspeth.hansen@mayerbrown.com


AUTOMATED COLLECTION: Scifo Seeks Certification of Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NANCY SCIFO, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AUTOMATED
COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-921 (E.D.
Wisc.), Plaintiff filed a placeholder motion seeking to certify
classes.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendants)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Hp737TCM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVID LIFE: Faces FTC Scrutiny Amid Data Breach MDL
--------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for Law.com, reports that federal
regulators are returning to the online dating world -- and, this
time, they have a bigger industry player in their sights.

On July 5, Reuters reported that Avid Life Media Inc., the parent
company of the online dating site AshleyMadison.com, is facing a
Federal Trade Commission investigation.  The scrutiny comes a year
after the site -- with the slogan "Life is short.  Have an affair"
-- was hacked in a data breach that exposed the personal
information of millions of users.

Although the FTC has strived to be the top cop for data security
in recent years, the focus of its inquiry into Ashley Madison may
extend beyond the breach.  In 2014, when the FTC took its first
enforcement action against an online dating service, the agency
faulted the England-based JDI Dating Ltd. for using fake,
computer-generated profiles that lured users into upgrading their
accounts.

That same year, Ashley Madison shut down its own fake profiles --
dubbed "fembots" -- in the United States, Canada and Australia.
Before the company closed down those profiles worldwide in late
2015, some U.S. users continued exchanging messages with foreign
fembots, according to an Ernst & Young report commissioned by
Ashley Madison and shared with Reuters.

The focus of the FTC investigation is unknown even to Avid Life
Media executives, according to Reuters and The New York Times. The
company and the FTC did not return The National Law Journal's
requests for comment on July 5.  In addition to the FTC inquiry,
Avid Life Media is a defendant in multidistrict litigation, over
the data breach, in St. Louis federal district court.

"Like all businesses in today's security reality, Avid Life Media
has been investing even more heavily in security enhancements and
privacy safeguards to deal with evolving cyber threats over the
past year, and that will continue," Rob Segal, Avid Life Media's
newly named chief executive officer, said in a statement on
July 4.

Avid Life Media said in the statement that the company partnered
with a Deloitte cybersecurity team "to implement new and enhanced
security safeguards and 24/7 monitoring."  Mr. Segal told the
Times that the company has cooperated with federal regulators
since August.

Lawrence Walters of the Walters Law Group, in Longwood, Florida,
represented JDI Dating in the FTC investigation.  It's "certainly
possible that they're facing issues related to use of bots to
generate conversations, which they've apparently reduced or
eliminated over time," Mr. Walters said on July 5.

Mr. Walters described the JDI Dating settlement as a "victory for
the company" that he attributed to the company's cooperation with
federal regulators.

"It's better to overdisclose and tell the truth about what's going
on than to hide anything," he said.  "If the FTC determines that
you've been less than forthcoming, that can play very negatively
in any future dealings with the FTC as a target."

JDI Dating also benefited from being based in the United Kingdom,
giving the company a potential objection to the FTC's authority,
Walters said.  Avid Life Media is based in Toronto.

"That said, the FTC has been fairly successful in imposing its
jurisdiction on foreign companies if they have any presence in the
U.S. or regularly deal with U.S. customers," Mr. Walters said.
"It's difficult to try to take a position that you don't have a
position in the U.S. unless you actively block U.S. customers and
advertisers."

Mr. Walters said JDI Dating "took the position from the very
beginning that they want to be compliant, they wanted to know what
compliance means."

In a complaint filed in Illinois federal district court, the FTC
alleged JDI Dating misrepresented computer-generated accounts --
for "virtual cupids" -- as profiles for actual users.  A small "v"
encircled by a "C" was the only indication that an account was
computer generated.

The icon, according to the FTC, was "darn near microscopic."

The company also failed to tell subscribers that their
subscriptions would be renewed automatically and that they would
continue to be charged until they canceled, according to the
complaint.

As part of the settlement, the FTC required JDI to disclose to
potential users that they may receive messages from virtual
profiles.

"Based on at least what happened in the JDI case, we can discern
what the FTC's thinking is, generally -- not to say what happened
with JDI is the law for everyone else," Mr. Walters said.  "The
results have essentially been adopted as the industry standard,
because there was no industry standard before."


BALTIMORE, MD: Maintenance Workers Face Charges Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WJZ reports that a sexual extortion scandal rocked Baltimore City
public housing, with accusations that workers were forcing tenants
to have sex in exchange for repairs.

Now, the City State's Attorney's Office has filed charges against
two of those workers, WJZ's Ava-joye Burnett reports.  One told
our media, The Baltimore Sun, that he was "set up."

Raw sewage bubbling up through pipes, no heat and even apartments
infested with rodents -- that's what women living in Baltimore
City public housing say they were forced to live in if they didn't
perform sexual favors for maintenance workers.

The State's Attorney's Office announced a slew of charges against
two of the workers, including fourth-degree sex offense.

"Well, I can't go into a lot of detail about the case because it
is an open and pending case.  However, the charges in this case --
like in all cases -- reflect our subsequent investigation and our
obligation to apply the facts to the law," said
Rochelle Ritchie, Baltimore State's Attorney's Office.

The two workers charged are Charles Coleman and Doug Hussy.

Hussy told our media partner, The Baltimore Sun, that: "They got
it wrong.  I never did anything to nobody."

In January, the Baltimore Housing Authority's top leader spoke up
after the city reached settlement in a multi-million dollar
lawsuit.

"Mistakes have been made here, and some of them have been very
serious mistakes," said Paul Graziano, Baltimore Housing
Commissioner.

Initially, there were 19 women on that class action lawsuit.  In
June, more women were added, bringing the total number to 56.

"They left her in the house for two weeks straight with no
lights," said one man, whose mother is part of the class action
lawsuit against the city.  "It was pretty hard.  I had to talk her
into it . . . because I believe wrong is wrong."

Community advocates who have been pushing for change say the
victims' voices are finally being heard.

"To see that for once, those who have been entrusted, who have
breached that trust, are now being held personally accountable,"
said Perry Hopkins, Communities United.

Some workers were fired after the sex-for-repairs scandal came to
light.

As for the class action lawsuit, the housing authority has agreed
to pay millions to the victims once the courts make the final
approval.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Interest Rate Swap Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------
TRIANGLE T PARTNERS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED; BARCLAYS PLC; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL
INC.; BNP PARIBAS, S.A.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP,
INC.; CITIBANK, N.A.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG;
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL;
DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; THE GOLDMAN SACHS
GROUP, INC.; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.; GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA; GOLDMAN
SACHS FINANCIAL MARKETS, LP; GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL; ICAP
CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.; J.P. MORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
PLC; THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC; ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
PLC; RBS SECURITIES INC.; TRADEWEB MARKETS LLC; UBS AG; AND UBS
SECURITIES LLC, the Defendants, Case No. :16-cv-05260 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 1, 2016), seeks damages against Defendants for conspiracy
among major banks -- the Dealer Defendants -- and their co-
conspirators to dominate and control the market for interest rate
swaps (IRS), and reap supracompetitive profits from artificially
high spreads for the sale and purchase of IRS.

The IRS is a type of derivative where two parties agree to
exchange types of interest payments based on a specified principal
amount. Under this arrangement, one party agrees to pay the other
a fixed interest rate amount, while the other party agrees to pay
a floating interest rate (usually based on the London interbank
offered rate). Over time, IRS agreements became highly
standardized, where all the material terms are set, which, in
turn, led to a higher volume of IRS trading and large growth in
the IRS market.

Bank of America is an American multinational banking and financial
services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          Eric C. Cramer, Esq.
          Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          David A. Langer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net
                  ecramer@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net
                  dlanger@bm.net


BLUE SHIELD: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Erroneous Claims Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA MORRIS AND BECKY EBENKAMP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE SHIELD OF
CALIFORNIA (BS), AND DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC625804 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2016), seeks order
providing disgorgement of all amounts BS has wrongfully retained.

In July 2015, BS submitted a rate filing to the Department of
Managed Health Care (DMHC) notifying it that it intended to
increase its rates for non-grandfathered individual market plans
in 2016 by 4.6%. Accompanying that rate filing was a memorandum
containing data justifying the rate increase BS would be
implementing.

BS states that 2.6% of the $1,715,238,508 it paid in claims in
2014, or $44,596,201, was paid by mistake, and thus that its costs
for 2016 will not include that amount. Although BS admits that it
paid $44,596,201 by mistake in 2014, and although the Medical Loss
Ratio (MLR) Rule and the MLR Instructions prohibit insurers from
including claims paid by mistake in calculating their MLR, BS
included that $44,596,201 in erroneous claims payments' as "health
care and quality improvement activities" when it calculated its
MLR for 2014. BS has therefore rebated to Plaintiffs and the
446,407 other members of the class, less than the amount it is
legally mandated to rebate to them.

Blue Shield of California is a health plan provider founded in
1939 and based in San Francisco, California. The organization
serves over 4 million health plan members and nearly 65,000
physicians across the state.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Angoff, Esq.
          Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
          Steven Skalet, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave., NW., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822 5100

               - and -

          Dan Stonner, Esq.
          Randy Renick, Esq.
          Cornelia Dai, Esq.
          HADSELL STONNER & RENICK LLP
          128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 585 9600
          Facsimile: (626) 577 7079
          E-mail: m@hadsellstonner.com
                  cdai@hadsellstonner.com


BLUEFIELD REGIONAL: "McGuire" Suit Moved to S.D. W. Virg.
---------------------------------------------------------
Virginia McGuire, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bluefield Regional Medical Center,
Professional Account Services, Inc., HealthPort Technologies, LLC,
John Doe Billing Companies 1-10, and John Doe Hospitals/Medical
Providers (1-100), Case No. 16-C-158, was removed from Mercer
County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia (Bluefield). The Southern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05981 to the proceeding.

Bluefield Regional is a general medical and surgical hospital in
Bluefield, West Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda Taylor, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN P. NEW
          114 Main Street
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Telephone: (304) 250 3280
          Facsimile: (304) 250 6012

               - and -

          D. Adrian Hoosier, II, Esq.
          Erica N. Lord, Esq.
          LORD HOOSIER
          225 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345 8030
          Facsimile: (304) 553 7227
          E-mail: dah@hoosierfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Christopher White, Esq.
          Steven S. Wolfe, Esq.
          WOLFE WHITE & ASSOCIATES
          P. O. Box 536
          Logan, WV 25601
          Telephone: (304) 752 7715
          Facsimile: (304) 752 7710
          E-mail: swolfe@wolfelawwv.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. New, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN P. NEW
          114 Main Street
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Telephone: (304) 250 3280
          Facsimile: (304) 250 6012
          E-mail: snew17@yahoo.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, Esq.
          GROVE HOLMSTRAND & DELK
          44 1/2 Fifteenth Street
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 905 1961
          Facsimile: (304) 905 8629
          E-mail: jholmstrand@grovedelklaw.com


BLUEMERCURY INC: Hamilton Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
DIONNE HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUEMERCURY, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1- 25, the Defendants, Case No.
BC625829 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2016), seeks to recover
damages, penalties, injunctive relief or other equitable relief on
the grounds that Defendants have used uniform policies and
procedures that have consistently violated California labor laws
and regulations and caused Plaintiff and the rest of the Classes
suffer the same or similar injuries.

The complaint says the Plaintiff was required to be at Defendants'
place of business for a full shift, and was under Defendants'
control during that entire period of time, but was not compensated
for all of this time. As a result of this unlawful policy,
Plaintiff and the Piece Rate Class were not compensated for the
all the time they waited between the time they spent performing
services and before the first service they performed each day, and
were not compensated for the time they spent after the service
they performed each day before the end of each shift and any time
during which Plaintiff and the Piece-Rate Class took rest breaks.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and the rest of the Class are entitled to
recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages under the Labor Code
for their waiting time (including any rest break time) at any time
within the four years prior to the initiation of this action until
the date that the Class is certified, plus liquidated damages
under Labor Code.

Bluemercury owns and operates spas and retail stores at various
locations within the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542 2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542 2101

               - and -

          Marshall A. Caskey, Esq
          Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
          6 Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq.
          CASKEY & HOLZMAN
          24025 Park Sorrento, Ste.
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 657-1070
          Facsimile: (818) 297-1775


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits have been filed against Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
International GmbH, in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford
Judicial District.

The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety
of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use,
and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless
disregard for patient safety, in violations of the Connecticut
Products Liability Act.

According to the complaints, the Defendants negligently designed
and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling,
prescribing information and patient medication guide which
rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM),
throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent
platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood
clot.

The case are:

-- Ursula Broussard, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069495-S (July 1, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH
          FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 1025
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

-- Karen Conzaman, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069492-S (July 1, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH
          FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 1025
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

-- Lorne Thomas, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069488-S (July 1, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH
          FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 1025
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

-- Arthur Ushkurnis, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069493-S (July 1, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH
          FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 1025
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOHEMIAN GROVE: Settles Employees' Class Action for $7 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Barmann, writing for sfist, reports that valets at Bohemian
Grove, the ultra-elite private resort in the redwoods of Monte Rio
owned by the Bohemian Club, just won a significant settlement from
the 144-year-old private gentlemen's club.  As the Chronicle
reports, a group of 600 current and former employees at the Grove
filed a class action lawsuit last year claiming that they had been
overworked and underpaid during the summer retreats that were
hosted there between 2011 and 2014.  Allegations included a denial
of overtime pay despite being on call 24 hours a day, often
working 16- and 18-hour days without days off, and adhering to
strict dress codes.

Work included serving cocktails and cleaning, as well as catering
to the needs of invited guests.

And, just as Uber and Lyft and many other gig economy apps have
been accused of improperly doing under state labor laws, the
Bohemian Club apparently treated the workers, many of whom worked
for the organization for many years, as independent contractors.
Rather than let the suit go to court, the Club has settled the
class action for $7 million, or an average settlement of $11,667
per employee.

Part of the suit also alleges that representatives of the Club
attempted to squelch the class action at the end of the summer
season in 2014 by offering employees envelopes of extra cash.

Local PR fixer Sam Singer issued a statement on behalf of the Club
stipulating that the organization admits no wrongdoing, and
saying, "The camps at the Bohemian Grove treat their valets very
well.  They are beloved members of the family.  Many of them serve
for generations at different camps within the grove.

Unfortunately, in the world of courtroom law, it takes more money
to prove your innocence than it does to settle in cases like
this."

Bohemian Grove was notably the site of annual protests, up until a
few years ago, from various leftist activists who converged there
because it was a gathering spot of powerful national and world
leaders.  As one frequent protester put it to the New York Times
in 2010, "Bohemian Grove allowed us to build coalitions. Because
whatever your issue was, someone in there was making money off
it."

It's said that the Manhattan Project was conceived at Bohemian
Grove in 1942, and that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon came to an
agreement there in 1967 over which man would seek the presidency
first.  There have been various rumors of bizarre rituals,
fraternity-like behavior, public urination, and general debauchery
among the 2,500 men who are invited annually to the three weeks of
retreats -- it began in 1872 as an organization for San Francisco
journalists and actual "bohemians" like artists and musicians, but
eventually by the 1900's membership and the summer invite list was
opened up to businessmen and politicians.
Learn more about the various camps, parties, productions, and
rituals in this sociological paper from UC Santa Cruz professor G.
William Domhoff.

As Singer told the Times six years ago, "This is two weeks, over
the course of a year, when a group of gentlemen enjoy close
friendships, current events and theatrical productions, without
needing to see it on the front page of The Times or The Post."
And, he added, "People do urinate on redwoods, [not as part of any
ritual, but] as the need becomes necessary."


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Compensation System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Cauterucci, writing for Slate, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed on July 6 alleges that California's workers'
compensation system discriminates against women, routinely
attributing work-related injuries to the pre-existing condition of
being a woman.  Plaintiffs claim that diagnoses of carpal tunnel
syndrome were brushed off as the result of menopause or
breastfeeding rather than consequences of years typing at a work
computer, and disability benefits provided for female-specific
cancers were significantly lower than those for cancers that
affect the male body.

Filed by a group of individual female workers and the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) California State Council, the
suit describes several cases in which women's disability benefits
were slashed because state-trained qualified medical evaluators
(QMEs) attributed their work-related health conditions in part to
the "risk factors" of their gender or reproductive capacity.

One plaintiff, Leticia Gonzalez, worked 40 hours a week for 17
years as a technician at a telecommunications company, mostly
spent typing at a desk. She developed pain and numbness in her
neck, arms, wrists, and hands, which persisted even after surgery.
A QME diagnosed her with work-related carpal tunnel syndrome and
nerve damage in 2014, granting her permanent disability benefits.
But the QME attributed 20 percent of Gonzalez's injuries to the
"non-industrial factors" of her age and gender.  "Carpal tunnel
compression neuropathy is almost ubiquitous in the female
population in her age demographic," the QME wrote.  Because she
was a woman, Gonzalez got less compensation than she would have if
she were a man.

Veronica Kelley, an events manager, also developed carpal tunnel
after several years of daily office typing.  The suit states that
she started experiencing symptoms in early 2013, but it took her
until August 2014 to get an appointment with a specialist in the
workers' compensation system.  By that time, she was pregnant.
Kelley brought her four-month-old baby to her appointment with a
California QME in February 2015.  According to the lawsuit, the
QME "expressed annoyance" that the baby was there and asked
Ms. Kelley repeated questions about breastfeeding and how it
affected her carpal tunnel symptoms.

Ms. Kelley allegedly noted several times that her condition had
begun before she'd even gotten pregnant.  Still, the QME reported
that Ms. Kelley's carpal tunnel was "either the result of or
aggravated by her pregnancy and breast feeding" and "should be
expected to improve with the simple passage of time including when
she stops breast feeding her infant."  Since that report, Kelley
has stopped breastfeeding and has reported no improvement in her
symptoms, indicating that the QME's evaluation was based in
gender-related bias and not an accurate assessment of her workers'
compensation claim.

"California's system of workers' compensation perpetuates the type
of overt sex discrimination that is a relic of a past era," the
complaint reads.  "It deprives women workers of fair compensation
on the basis of stereotypes about gender and women's reproductive
biology. . . . By permitting and condoning the distribution of
workers' compensation benefits on the basis of sex, the State of
California sends a clear message that women's work is worth less."

The complaint alleges that being a male or having male
reproductive characteristics are never cited as pre-existing
conditions, risk factors, or reasons for reducing disability
benefits or workers' compensation.  It also claims that
California's system of benefit allocation for permanent disability
underestimates harm specific to women -- namely, the effects of
breast cancer--by using the American Medical Association Guides to
the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. These impairment ratings
are medical assessments that affects benefits, with a higher
impairment rating translating to higher benefits.  If a man has
his prostate removed due to work-related prostate cancer, the AMA
guides usually grant him an impairment rating of 16 to 20 percent.
A woman who's had a mastectomy during or after developing work-
induced breast cancer will get up to a 5 percent impairment rating
if she's of reproductive age and no impairment rating at all if
she's older than that.

That's what happened to another plaintiff, law enforcement
sergeant Janice Page, who got breast cancer and underwent five
surgeries as a result, including a mastectomy of her right breast.
When she filed for workers' compensation, the examiner determined
that her breast cancer was an effect of years of exposure to
carcinogens in her workplace.  The suit details a slew of lasting
physical, psychological, and emotional consequences Page has
suffered since her mastectomy.  But since she was past
childbearing age, Ms. Page was granted a zero percent impairment
rating for her work-induced mastectomy, as if she'd have no use
for her breasts beyond their functioning as milk producers.

The suit also cites cases wherein women's awards for work-related
"psychiatric injuries" like depression were reduced by as much as
80 percent because of "perimenopausal factors" and "gynecological
issues," rulings that seems to rely on the old sexist myth that
women endure hysterical bouts of mental disturbance due to the
workings of their reproductive organs, making their suffering less
acute than men's.  In workers' compensation cases, those
stereotypes can cause real financial damage to someone who's
earned a fair award but finds herself hampered by the pesky fact
that she was born female.


CAREMARK RX: August 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASE NO. CV-2003-006630
SAM JOHNSON and CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT
AND RELIEF SYSTEM, for themselves
individually and on behalf of a class of all
others who are similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

CAREMARK Rx, L.L.C.; AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.;
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.; and
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

A court has authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS LITIGATION. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION REFERRED TO IN THE CAPTION
AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE
COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL
RELEASE ALL CLAIMS CONCERNING THE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS AT
ISSUE, THE MEDPARTNERS SECURITIES LITIGATION1 AND THE 1999
MEDPARTNERS SECURITIES LITIGATION SETTLEMENT, ALONG WITH CERTAIN
OTHER CLAIMS, ALL AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE STIPULATION OF
SETTLEMENT. IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED, YOU ALSO WILL BE
FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS, AND
ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
PROCEEDS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE. TO
CLAIM YOUR SHARE OF THIS FUND, YOU MUST SUBMIT A TIMELY AND VALID
PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ("PROOF OF CLAIM AND
RELEASE") POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED ONLINE ON OR BEFORE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2016.

To: All Persons who (a) purchased MedPartners common stock,
including through open-market transactions, mergers or
acquisitions in which MedPartners issued common stock, acquisition
through the Company's Employee Stock Purchase Plan ("ESPP"), and
any other type of transaction in which a Person acquired one or
more shares of MedPartners stock in return for consideration
during the period from October 30, 1996, through January 7, 1998,
inclusive; (b) purchased call option contracts on MedPartners
common stock during the period October 30, 1996, through January
7, 1998, inclusive; (c) sold put option contracts on MedPartners
common stock during the period October 30, 1996, through January
7, 1998, inclusive; (d) purchased MedPartners Threshold
Appreciation Price Securities ("TAPS") in the
September 15, 1997 offering or thereafter through January 7, 1998;
or (e) tendered shares of Talbert Medical Management
Holdings Corporation to MedPartners between August 20, 1997, and
September 19, 1997, but excluding (i) all those Persons who
submitted valid requests for exclusion in connection with the
MedPartners Securities Litigation Settlement and (ii) all those
Persons who submitted valid requests for exclusions in the
response to the Class Notice (collectively, the "Class," comprised
of "Class Members").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, of the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the certified class action in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, entitled Sam Johnson,
and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, for
Themselves, Individually, and on Behalf of a Class of All Others
Who Are Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Caremark Rx, L.L.C.;
American International Group, Inc.; National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.; AIG Technical Services, Inc.; and
American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company,
Defendants, Case No. CV-2003-006630 (the "Litigation"), and of the
hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") to be held on Monday, August 8,
2016, at 1:30 p.m., by the Court to consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement between Class Counsel and
Plaintiffs and Defendants dated May 27, 2016 (the "Stipulation").

At that hearing the Court also will be asked to approve a Plan of
Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund and a Fee and
Expense Application, both proposed by Class Counsel.  Copies of
the Stipulation, the Plan of Allocation and the Fee and
Expense Application are all posted on the following website:
www.aig-caremarkclassaction.com.

If you do not meet the Class definition, this Notice does not
apply to you.  If you are uncertain whether you are a
member of the Class, contact Class Counsel (listed below) or
consult your own attorney.

This Notice is solely to advise you of the proposed settlement of
this Litigation and of your rights in connection
therewith.

I. STATEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS'S RECOVERY
The proposed Settlement will create a cash fund in the principal
amount of Three-Hundred Ten Million Dollars ($310,000,000.00) (the
"Settlement Amount"), plus any income that may accrue thereon (the
"Settlement Fund").  The Settlement Fund, subject to deductions
for, among other things, costs of class notice and administration,
certain taxes and tax-related expenses, and attorneys' fees and
expenses as approved by the Court, will be available for
distribution to those Class Members who file a timely and valid
Proof of Claim and Release and whose claim is approved by the
Claims Administrator administering the claims process, all as set
forth in the attached Stipulation and Plan of Allocation.

II. REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT
Plaintiffs, through Class Counsel, conducted a thorough
investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in the
Litigation.  Through this investigation, and during the 12 years
that this case has been pending, Class Counsel has developed a
detailed understanding of the underlying events that are relevant
to the Litigation.  Class Counsel's investigation has revealed
sufficient information to evaluate the claims and defenses
asserted in the Litigation and to conclude that no additional
information, whether related to the merits of the claims in the
Litigation, the amounts potentially available to satisfy a
judgment or settlement of the Litigation, or any other matter
material to the Litigation, assuming such information were to
exist, would have a material impact on their evaluation of this
Settlement.  Based on this evaluation, Class Counsel and
Plaintiffs have concluded that the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and it is in the best interests of the
Class.

While Plaintiffs believe that the claims asserted in the
Litigation have merit, they also believe that the Settlement
provides substantial benefits to the Class, including a
substantial monetary recovery for the Class while avoiding the
risks of continued litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome
in the Litigation.  Considering the uncertain probability of
success on the merits of the Litigation, including the uncertain
possibility of obtaining a monetary recovery, and because
the proposed Settlement provides a certain benefit to class
members and will avoid additional years of delay that would
likely occur in the event of a contested trial and appeals,
Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have concluded that the Settlement
is an excellent result for the Class.

III. DEFENDANTS' DENIALS OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY
The Defendants deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing of any
kind, that they committed any violation of law,
or that they breached any duty allegedly owed in any way related
to Plaintiffs or the Class.  Defendants further state that
they are entering into the proposed Settlement solely to eliminate
the burdens, distractions, expense, and uncertainty of
further litigation.

IV. NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
The Settlement Hearing will be held on Monday, August 8, 2016, at
1:30 p.m., Central Time, before the Honorable Patrick J. Ballard,
Circuit Judge, at the Jefferson County, Alabama, Courthouse, 716
North Richard Arrington, Jr., Boulevard, Third Floor Courtroom,
Birmingham, Alabama 35203.  The purposes of the Settlement Hearing
are to: (1) determine whether the proposed Settlement Amount as
set forth in the Stipulation, consisting of $310,000,000 in cash,
is fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiffs and other Class
Members; (2) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is
fair, reasonable, and adequate to Class Members; (3) consider the
Fee and Expense Application by Class Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses; (4) consider the application for
incentive awards for Plaintiffs and
certain former Plaintiffs; (5) determine whether the Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal, in the form attached to the
Stipulation, should be rendered and entered; and (6) rule on such
other matters as the Parties request, consistent with the
terms of the Stipulation.  The Court has reserved the right to
adjourn the Settlement Hearing without further notice of any
kind other than an oral adjournment announcement at the Settlement
Hearing or a written order entered prior to the
Settlement Hearing.

V. DESCRIPTION OF THIS LITIGATION
On August 15, 2012, the Court certified the Class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Court's
order was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alabama in CVS Caremark
Corp. v. Lauriello, 175 So. 3d 596 (Ala. 2014) (as modified on
denial of rehearing Feb. 27, 2015).  A trial date of May 16, 2016,
was pending when the proposed Settlement was reached.  A class
action is a type of lawsuit in which one or several individuals or
entities prosecute alleged claims on
behalf of all members of a group of allegedly similarly-situated
persons and entities in an effort to obtain monetary damages or
other relief for the benefit of the entire group, known as a
class. Class actions avoid the necessity of each member of a class
having to file a separate lawsuit to obtain relief.  Class actions
are used to decide legal and factual issues that are common to all
members of a class.

The Litigation, which was initially filed in October 2003, arises
out of the earlier settlement of various securities and derivative
lawsuits (collectively referred to as the "MedPartners Securities
Litigation") that were resolved in 1999.

Those securities and derivative lawsuits alleged that MedPartners
had made a series of false and misleading statements
concerning a planned merger between MedPartners and PhyCor Inc.,
and concerning MedPartners' overall financial
condition.

In the current Litigation, Plaintiffs allege that, during the
course of the MedPartners Securities Litigation, the Defendants
(1) misrepresented the amount of insurance available to settle the
MedPartners Securities Litigation; and (2) suppressed information
concerning the excess insurance policy at issue. Plaintiffs allege
that the settlement of the MedPartners Securities Litigation would
have been much higher if additional facts had been known about the
excess insurance policy.  The Defendants in the Litigation deny
liability and, in addition to other legal defenses, they deny
committing any wrongdoing in regard to the MedPartners Securities
Litigation Settlement.

VI. TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
A proposed Settlement has been reached in this Litigation between
Class Counsel and Plaintiffs and Defendants, the terms and
conditions of which are set forth in the Stipulation and the
exhibits thereto.  A portion of the Settlement Fund will be used
to pay Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, to pay
incentive awards to Plaintiffs and certain former Plaintiffs, to
pay for this Notice and the processing of claims submitted by
Class Members, and to pay taxes and tax-related expenses.  The
balance of the Settlement Fund (the "Net Settlement Fund") will be
distributed in accordance with the Plan of Allocation, described
below, to Class Members who submit valid and timely Proofs of
Claim and Release.  The effectiveness of the proposed Settlement
is subject to certain conditions referenced in the Stipulation.

VII. PLAN OF ALLOCATION
The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Class Members who
are entitled to a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund and
who submit a timely and valid Proof of Claim and Release
("Authorized Claimants").

The Settlement of $310,000,000, after deduction of Attorney Fees
and expenses, taxed and approved costs, will be apportioned among
the Common Stock and Options Class, the TAPS Class, and the Tender
Offer Class (each as described below) in the same proportion as
the Gross Settlement Fund from the MedPartners Securities
Litigation Settlement, specifically: (a) 52.68% to the members of
the Common Stock and Options Class; (b) 44.64% to the members of
the TAPS Class; and (c) 2.68% to the members of the Tender Offer
Class. These percentages of allocation among the
original subclasses of the MedPartners Securities Litigation
Settlement were approved by the Court in that settlement.
The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed according to the Plan
of Allocation, reproduced below, which was approved by the court
in the MedPartners Securities Litigation Settlement:
"To the extent there are sufficient funds in the Net Settlement
Fund, each Authorized Claimant will receive an amount equal to the
Authorized Claimant's claim, as defined below.  If, however, the
amount in the Net Settlement Fund is not sufficient to permit
payment of the total claim of each Authorized Claimant, then each
Authorized Claimant shall be paid the percentage of the Net
Settlement Fund that each Authorized Claimant's claim bears to the
total of the claims of all Authorized Claimants.  Payment in this
manner shall be deemed conclusive against all Authorized
Claimants.

The total of all profits in transactions that qualify a Person as
a Settlement Class Member shall be subtracted from the total of
all losses in such transactions to determine if a Settlement Class
Member has a claim.

Only if a Settlement Class Member had a net loss, after all
profits from transactions during the Settlement Class
periods are subtracted from all losses will such Settlement Class
Member be eligible to receive a distribution from
the Net Settlement Fund.

The Claims Administrator shall determine each Authorized
Claimant's pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon
each Authorized Claimant's "Claim."  An Authorized Claimant's
"Claim" shall be calculated as follows:

(A) The Common Stock and Options Class:
(1) Common Stock:
For shares of MedPartners common stock purchased between
October 30, 1996, and January 7, 1998, inclusive, a Claim shall
mean:
(a) if the shares were purchased between May 6, 1997, and
January 7, 1998, and were still owned at the
close of business on January 7, 1998, the difference between the
purchase price and $10.40 per share;
(b) if the shares were purchased between May 6, 1997, and
January 7, 1998, and were sold at a loss
between May 6. 1997, and January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference
between the purchase price and the sales price received;
(c) if the shares were purchased between October 30, 1996, and May
5, 1997, and were still owned at the close of business on January
7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the purchase price and
$10.40 per share;
(d) if the shares were purchased between October 30, 1996, and May
5, 1997, and were sold at a loss
between October 30, 1996 and January 7, 1998, 5% of the difference
between the purchase price and the sales
price received; and
(e) for purposes of calculating an Authorized Claimant's Claim.
MedPartners stock purchased by an employee of the Company pursuant
to the ESPP in January 1998 shall be deemed to have been purchased
on December 31, 1997, and still owned as of the close of business
on January 7, 1998.

(2) Call Options:
If any call options were exercised to purchase common stock, the
date of exercise will be the purchase date of the stock.
Additionally, if an exercised call option was purchased between
October 30, 1996, and January 7, 1998, the cost of the option
shall be added to the cost of the exercised shares.  For a call
option which was not exercised, a Claim shall mean:
(a) if the call option was purchased between May 6, 1997, and
January 7, 1998, and still owned at the
close of business on January 7, 1998, the difference between the
purchase price and the closing price of the call
option on January 7, 1998:
(b) if the call option was purchased between May 6, 1997, and
January 7, 1998, and sold at a loss (or
expired) between May 6, 1997, and January 7, 1998, 15% of the
difference between the purchase price and the
sales price received (or $0 if the call expired);
(c) if the call option was purchased between October 30, 1996, and
May 5, 1997 and was still owned at
the close of business on January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference
between the purchase price and the closing price
of the call option on January 7, 1998;
(d) if the call option was purchased between October 30, 1996, and
May 5, 1997, and was sold at a loss
(or expired) between October 30, 1996, and January 7, 1998, 5% of
the difference between the purchase price and
the sale price received (or $0 if the call expired).

(3) Put Options:
For any put options which were sold, and for which shares were
"put" by the option holder during the Class Period, the date on
which the shares were "put" to the claimant shall be the purchase
date of the stock.
Additionally, if the put options were sold during the Class
Period, the sale price of the option shall be deducted
from the purchase price of the shares.   For a put option which
was not exercised by the buyer of the put option during the Class
Period (shares were not "put" to the seller of the option), a
Claim shall mean:
(a) if the put option was sold between May 6, 1997, and January 7,
1998, and remained uncovered at the close of business on January
7, 1998, the difference between the closing price of the put
option on January 7, 1998, and the sale price;
(b) if the put option was sold between May 6, 1997, and January 7,
1998, and purchased (to cover) at a loss between May 6, 1997, and
January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the purchase price
of the put option (to cover) and the sale price of the option;
(c) if the put option was sold between October 30, 1996, and May
5, 1997, and remained uncovered at the close of business on
January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the closing price
of the put option on January 7, 1998, and the sale price;
(d) if the put option was sold between October 30, 1996, and May
5, 1997, and was purchased (to cover) at a loss between October
30, 1996, and January 7, 1998, 5% of the difference between the
purchase price of the option (to cover) and the sale price of the
option.
(B) The TAPS Class:
For MedPartners' TAPS purchased between September 15, 1997, and
January 7, 1998, inclusive,
Recognized Loss shall mean:
(1) if the TAPS were still owned at the close of business on
January 7, 1998, the difference between the purchase price (but in
no event more than $22.1875 per TAPS) and $13.00 per TAPS;
(2) if the TAPS were sold at a loss between September 15, 1997,
and January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the purchase
price (but in no event more than $22.1875 per TAPS) and the sales
price received.
(C) The Tender Offer Class:
For Talbert common shares tendered to MedPartners between August
20, 1997, and September 19, 1997,
inclusive, Recognized Loss shall mean $6.00 for each Talbert
common share tendered.

For open market transactions or purchases in the TAPS public
offering, the date of purchase or sale is the "trade" date as
distinguished from the "settlement" date.  For all other
transactions, the date of purchase is the latest of the date of
conversion, exchange, or exercise, or the date on which all
contractual conditions to a purchase were satisfied.  All
references to the purchase price paid include transaction fees and
charges and brokerage commissions, if and to the extent
applicable. All references to the sales price received are net of
transaction fees and charges and brokerage commissions, if and to
the extent applicable.

For Settlement Class Members with claims based on MedPartners
stock or options or TAPS, who made multiple purchases or multiple
sales of the same such security during the applicable Settlement
Class Period, the earliest subsequent sale shall be matched with
the earliest purchase and chronologically thereafter for purposes
of the claim calculations."

No Authorized Claimant will be entitled to receive an amount
greater than "the Authorized Claimant's claim" until every
Authorized Claimant has received 100% of their Authorized
Claimant's claim.  If all Authorized Claimants of
a single subclass have received 100% of their claim, excess monies
apportioned to that subclass will be redistributed to
the other subclasses in the same proportion as the Plan of
Allocation, before accounting for any pro rata increase as
outlined in this sentence.  If the Net Settlement Fund is
sufficient to pay every Authorized Claimant the full amount of
their Authorized Claimant's claim, then the excess amount
remaining in the Net Settlement Fund shall be allocated, pro
rata, to Authorized Claimants (that is, Class Members who submit
valid and timely Proofs of Claim and Release in connection with
the Settlement) in the proportion that their claim bears to the
total amount of the Settlement apportioned to the Common Stock and
Options Class, the TAPS Class, or the Tender Offer Class, as
applicable.  In the interests of economy, no distribution shall be
made on any Claim where the payment of an Authorized Claimant's
pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund (after all adjustments
provided for in note 4 above) is less than ten
dollars ($10.00).

The Court has reserved jurisdiction to allow, disallow, or adjust
the Claim of any Class Member on equitable grounds.

Class Members who do not file timely and acceptable Proofs of
Claim and Release will not share in the Settlement proceeds. Class
Members who did not submit a valid request for exclusion in
accordance with the  requirements set forth in the Class Notice
published in or around June 2015 or do not file acceptable Proofs
of Claim and Release nevertheless will be bound by the Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal and the Settlement.

VIII. PARTICIPATION IN THE SETTLEMENT
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND, YOU
MUST SUBMIT A TIMELY AND VALID PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE.
Two forms of Proof of Claim and Release are attached to this
Notice.  The first is entitled: "PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - FORM
A." If you or your predecessor filed a claim in 1999 in the
MedPartners Securities Litigation that was approved and you or
your predecessor received a disbursement from the MedPartners
Securities Litigation Settlement, please complete and file Form A.
The second is entitled "PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - FORM B".
All other Class Members wishing to file a Claim should use Form B.
For either form, please read the instructions
carefully, fill out the applicable Proof of Claim and Release
form, sign it, and mail it so that it is delivered no later than
September 30, 2016.  For purposes of delivering Proofs of Claim
and Release, delivery shall be effective (a) upon personal
delivery, if delivered by hand, (b) on the day transmitted online
to the website identified below, (c) on the date postmarked if
transmitted via the United States Postal Service, or (d) on the
next business day, if sent by prepaid overnight courier service.
You may mail the applicable Proof of Claim and Release form to:

AIG-Caremark Class Action
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 8040
San Rafael, CA 94912-8040

Alternatively, the applicable Proof of Claim and Release form may
be submitted online at www.aigcaremarkclassaction.com.

Make sure you select the Proof of Claim and Release form
applicable to you.  Unless the Court orders otherwise, if you do
not submit a timely and valid Proof of Claim and Release you will
be barred from receiving any payments from the Net
Settlement Fund but nevertheless will in all other respects still
be bound by the provisions of the Stipulation and the Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal.

IX. NOTICE OF PRO AMI HEARING
Simultaneously with the Settlement Hearing, the Court will hold a
hearing ("Pro Ami Hearing") on Monday, August 8, 2016, at 1:30
p.m., Central Time, before the Honorable Patrick J. Ballard,
Circuit Judge, at the Jefferson County, Alabama, Courthouse, 716
North Richard Arrington, Jr., Boulevard, Third Floor Courtroom,
Birmingham, Alabama 35203.  The purpose of the Pro Ami Hearing
will be to determine whether the Settlement and Plan of Allocation
are in the best interests of those Class Members, if any, under
the age of 19 or those (a) not of sufficient mental capacity to
appreciate the effect of what he or she is doing in making a
contract, (b) who is not able to exercise his or her will with
reference thereto, and (c) who has no reasonable perception or
understanding of the nature and terms of the contract.  The Court
has reserved the right to adjourn the Pro Ami Hearing without
further notice of any kind other than an oral
adjournment announcement at the Pro Ami Hearing or a written order
entered prior to the Pro Ami Hearing.

X. DISMISSAL AND RELEASES
If the proposed Settlement is approved, the Court will enter a
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal.  In addition, upon the
Effective Date, Class Counsel, Class Representatives, and each
Class Member, for the Class Member and for any other Person
claiming (now or in the future) by, through or under such Class
Member, and regardless of whether any such Plaintiff or Class
Member ever seeks or obtains by any means, including, without
limitation, by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release, any
distribution from the Settlement Fund, shall be deemed to have,
and by operation of the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished,
and discharged all Released Claims against all of the Released
Persons and shall be permanently barred and enjoined from
instituting, commencing, or prosecuting any such Released Claim
against any of the Released Persons except to enforce
the releases and other terms and conditions contained in the
Stipulation or the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
entered pursuant thereto.  The full description of the Release is
stated in the Stipulation and in the Proof of Claim and
Release forms.

XI. APPLICATION FOR FEES AND EXPENSES
At the Settlement Hearing, Class Counsel will request the Court to
award attorneys' fees not to exceed 40% of the Settlement Amount,
plus expenses not to exceed $3,000,000.  In addition, Plaintiffs
and former named-plaintiff John Lauriello may each seek up to
$50,000 in expenses they incurred in representing and aiding the
Class and as incentive awards.  Such sums as may be approved by
the Court will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Class Members are
not personally liable for any such fees or expenses.  The fee
requested by Class Counsel will compensate counsel for their
efforts in achieving the settlement for the benefit of the Class
and for their risk in undertaking this representation on a wholly-
contingent basis.

XII. CONDITIONS FOR SETTLEMENT
The proposed Settlement is conditioned upon the occurrence of the
following events described in Paragraph 10.1 of the Stipulation:
(a) the Defendants have timely transferred or caused to be timely
transferred the Total Settlement Amount ($310,000,000) into the
Escrow Account, as required by Paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the
Stipulation; (b) the Court has entered the order approving the
Settlement Notices, as required by Paragraph 5.2(b) and (c) of the
Stipulation; (c) the approved Settlement contains a release and
waiver consistent with the terms of the Stipulation, including:
(i) the release of the portion of the Released Claims identified
in Paragraph 1.49(d) thereof; (ii) Paragraph 2.4 thereof; (iii)
the release of Unknown Claims and the operation of Paragraph 2.5
thereof; and (iv) Paragraph 2.6 thereof; (d) the Court has entered
the Pro Ami Order; (e) the Court has entered the Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal, in all material respects in the form of
Exhibit D to the Stipulation (or on such terms as the Parties
later agree); (f) no Party or their counsel has given notice of
intent to terminate the Settlement pursuant to Paragraph 10.3 of
the Stipulation; (g) no Class Member has
been excluded by the Court sua sponte without the consent of each
of the Parties; and (h) each of the Preliminary Approval Order,
the Pro Ami Order and the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
has become final, as defined in Paragraph 1.17 of the Stipulation.

If, for any reason, any one of the conditions described in the
Stipulation is not met, the Stipulation might be terminated and,
if terminated, will become null and void, and the parties to the
Stipulation will be restored to their respective positions as of
April 15, 2016.  In that event, the proposed Settlement will not
proceed, and no payments will be made to Class Members.

XIII. THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AND/OR BE HEARD AT THE HEARING
Any Class Member may object to the proposed Settlement, the Plan
of Allocation, the Fee and Expense Application and/or incentive
awards.  In addition, a Representative, as defined in the
Stipulation, may object to the Pro Ami Hearing or the Pro Ami
Order.  A Class Member, may lodge such an objection or, in the
case of an objection to the Pro Ami Hearing or the Pro Ami Order,
a Representative may object to the Pro Ami Hearing or the Pro Ami
Order, by filing a written objection and by appearing at the
Settlement Hearing and showing cause why the Court should not
approve the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the Fee
and Expense Application and/or incentive awards, or, in
the case of a Representative, the Pro Ami Hearing, or the Pro Ami
Order.

Written objections must be postmarked no later than July 22, 2016,
and mailed to:

AIG-Caremark Class Action
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 8040
San Rafael, CA 94912-8040

Written objections must state: (1) the nature of the objection;
(2) the grounds for such objection; (3) proof that the objector is
a member of the Class and has not been excluded by the Court on
its own motion; and (4) any documentation in support of such
objection.
If a Class Member or Representative desires to appear and be heard
at the Settlement Hearing, in addition to requirements (1)-(4),
above, such Class Member also must state: (5) an intention to
appear and be heard at the Settlement Hearing; and (6) the
identities of witnesses, if any, the Class Member intends to call
at the Settlement Hearing and a summary of their expected
testimony.  If the written objection includes a statement of the
intent to appear and be heard at the Settlement Hearing, copies of
the written objection must also be

(a) filed with the Court by July 22, 2016 at the address below:
Anne-Marie Adams, Clerk
716 Richard Arrington, Jr. Blvd. N.
Jefferson County Courthouse, Room 400
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
and

(b) mailed (postmarked no later than July 22, 2016) to:
Scott A. Powell
Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, LLP
2025 3rd Avenue North, Suite 800
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Attorney for the Plaintiff Class

M. Christian King
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Attorney for the AIG Defendants

David G. Hymer
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
One Federal Place
1819 5th Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Attorney for Defendant Caremark Rx, L.L.C.

XIV. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed
Settlement and does not describe all of the details of the
Stipulation, the Plan of Allocation or the Fee and Expense
Application.  The Stipulation, Plan of Allocation and Fee and
Expense Application, together with selected pleadings and other
settlement-related documents may be viewed online at www.aig-
caremarkclassaction.com.  If you have questions about the proposed
Settlement, the Stipulation, the Plan of Allocation, the Fee and
Expense Application, the incentive payments or the filing of a
Proof of Claim and Release form you may write to:

AIG-Caremark Class Action
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 8040
San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
or call toll-free 1-888-564-1149

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

XV. CLASS COUNSEL

As a class member, you are represented by Class Counsel, who are:

John W. Haley
Scott A. Powell
Bruce J. McKee
Ralph D. Cook
Brian M. Vines
Tempe D. Smith
Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, LLP
2025 3rd Avenue North, Suite 800
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Telephone: 205/328-5330
Facsimile: 205/324-2165
Email: scott@hwnn.com

J. Timothy Francis
Francis Law, LLC
300 Richard Arrington, Jr. Boulevard
North, Suite 700
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Telephone: 205/251-0252
Facsimile: 205/251-0255
Email: francis@bham.rr.com

John Q. Somerville
Somerville, LLC
300 Richard Arrington, Jr. Boulevard
North, Suite 710
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Telephone: 205/871-2183
Facsimile: 205/871-2184
Email: jqs@somervillellc.com


CAREPLUS HEALTH: Evidence Supporting Class Cert. Bid Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs and opt-in Whiteside in in the class action lawsuit
styled Collier et al v. Careplus Health Services, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00178-RC (E.D. Tex.), provided the Court with
evidence supporting their request for conditional class
certification.  Specifically, Plaintiffs filed a letter brief
discussing why certification is appropriate.

The Defendants allegedly bypassed their timekeeping software by
assigning patients to Field LVNs without entering these patients
into their time tracking software.

The Plaintiffs have also presented evidence that Defendants'
timekeeping software did not record all hours worked even for
those patients that had been entered into Defendants' software.

A copy of the Letter Brief is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z7DgMRmW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
          1800 Guadalupe Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 777 7777
          Facsimile: (512) 340 4051
          E-Mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


CASH STORE: Payday Loan Claims Period Open Until October 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Pensa LLP on July 5 disclosed that money is now available
from a successful class action settlement for anyone who took a
payday loan from the Cash Store or Instaloans in Ontario after
September 1, 2011.

Borrowers who took payday loans, including lines of credit, from
The Cash Store and Instaloans will now be able to make a claim for
a recovery of some of the fees and interest they were charged,
following a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to
approve a $10M class action settlement.

On July 5, the 'Take Back Your Cash' campaign officially launched
in Ontario.  Borrowers with approved claims will be eligible to
receive a minimum of $50, depending on claims volumes.  Claimants
may be entitled to even more money.

"We've made it as easy as possible for people to get their money
back, but the challenge is to ensure borrowers come forward and
file claims for their share of the settlement money," said
Jon Foreman, partner at Harrison Pensa LLP, legal counsel to the
class members in the case.  "If you took a payday loan from these
businesses after September 1, 2011 in Ontario, we want to hear
from you."

To help the borrowers to take advantage of the claims process as
much as possible, disclosure of the Defendants' records was
approved by the court and handed over to Harrison Pensa LLP and
Ricepoint Class Action Administration, the court appointed claims
administration firm which will be working on the campaign.
Borrowers should watch for text messages, emails, and telephone
calls over the next few weeks, explaining how to file a claim
online at takebackyourcash.com.  For information in French,
claimants can visit reprendretonargent.com.

"Borrowers should not worry if they are missing loan documents. We
have designed an efficient and easy process where former customers
aren't expected to know all of the exact details of their payday
loans with Cash Store and Instaloans in order to make a request
for a share of the settlement.  Documentation or back-up
information should only be needed in very limited circumstances",
Mr. Foreman says.  "Considerable efforts have been made to reach
the more than 100,000 claimants that are entitled to this
compensation and we're confident the great majority will be able
to obtain what's rightfully theirs."

The claims period will be open until October 31, 2016.

Once received, the claims will be reviewed for accuracy, which
takes time and requires careful work.  Claimants will receive
their cheques as soon as possible after the Claims Administrator
has completed its review, likely in mid-2017.

For more information, visit TakeBackYourCash.com or
reprendretonargent.com

                       About Harrison Pensa

Harrison Pensa LLP -- http://www.harrisonpensa.com-- is a full-
service law firm based in London, Ontario, with expertise in
business law, litigation and personal legal services including
family, wills and estate, and personal injury law.


CIRAOLO-KLEPPER: "Depolo" Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Rosemary M. Collyer entered an order in the lawsuit
styled LOUIS RONALD DEPOLO, Plaintiff, v. CAROLINE CIRAOLO-
KLEPPER, Personally, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-02039-
RMC (D.C.), granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.

The Court further denied:

     1. Plaintiff's motion to certify class and to
        appoint counsel;

     2. as moot Plaintiff's motion for hearing;

     3. as moot Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's
        motion for Hearing

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


CITIZENS BANK: Settles TCPA Class Action for $4.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM.com, reports that pursuant to a
California federal judge's preliminary approval order filed on
July 5, Citizens Bank will pay over $4.5 million to settle a class
action with more than one million members who claim it violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by allegedly calling
consumers' cellphones without their permission using an automated
dialing system.

The case is Sanders, et. al v. RBS Citizens, N.A. (Case No. 3:13-
cv-03136, United States District Court, Southern District of
California).

Background

On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff Linda Sanders (Plaintiff)
commenced this class action against Defendant RBS Citizens, N.A.
("Defendant" or "Citizens") seeking relief for violations of the
TCPA.

Plaintiff alleged she was harmed when she received a number of
unsolicited phone calls to her cellular telephone made by
Defendant.  Defendant's telephone calls were allegedly placed
using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS), as defined
by the TCPA, and using an "artificial or prerecorded voice" system
in further violation of TCPA.  Plaintiff states she did not
consent to these calls.  Plaintiff represents the Class Members,
claiming they were similarly harmed by receiving unsolicited phone
calls from Defendant through the use of an ATDS and artificial or
prerecorded voice in violation of the TCPA.

Defendant denied, and continues to deny, calling Plaintiff or
other putative class members in violation of the TCPA and without
their consent.

The parties vigorously litigated the matter.  Court records show
over one hundred separate documents or pleadings filed in the two-
and-one-half years since the case was filed.  Prior to the
settlement negotiations and mediation, the parties engaged in
discovery requests and exchanges, litigating several discovery
disputes.  Plaintiff made a motion to compel discovery, seeking a
dial list of calls made by Defendant, or by third-party vendors on
Defendant's behalf, and all documents relating to express consent.
Class Counsel served Defendant with 133 document requests, issued
twenty-one non-party subpoenas, and took a 30(b)(6) deposition of
Defendant's witness to confirm the class size.

The Proposed Settlement

The two parties reached a proposed settlement that will apply to
all class members (Class Members) of this matter.  The Settlement
applies to a proposed Settlement Class that is defined as follows:

All persons in the United States who received a call on their
cellular telephone from Citizens, or from any third parties
calling on a Citizens account, made with an alleged automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and/or an artificial or
pre-recorded voice from December 20, 2009 through July 13, 2015,
whose telephone numbers are identified in the Class List.  The
parties estimate this Settlement Class consists of 1,013,615 class
members.

Citizens agreed to establish a Settlement Fund in the amount of
$4,551,267.50 to pay for awards to Settlement Class Members,
settlement administration expenses, and any reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs approved and awarded by the Court.

As compensation for its services and to recover its expenses,
Class Counsel will seek from the Court an award of attorneys' fees
of no more than 25% of the Settlement Fund.  Class Counsel
estimates that the attorneys' fees will be up to $1,137,816.87.
Also, Class Counsel is seeking actual litigation costs of no more
than $25,000.

Plaintiff, as the class representative, will be paid up to $5,000
from the Settlement Fund as an incentive payment.

In addition to these expenses, the parties anticipate $553,027 in
claims administration costs if 1% of the Class submit claims, and
$628,461 if 5% of the Class submit claims.

Assuming the anticipated expenses are incurred and the claims
participation rate is correct, a 1% claim rate would result in
each Class Member receiving approximately $283.72, and a 5% claim
rate would result in each Class Member receiving approximately
$56.75.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Monday, January 23,
2017, at 10:30 a.m., in the Courtroom of the Honorable Cynthia
Bashant, United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, Courtroom 4B (4th Floor - Schwartz), 221 West
Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, for the following purposes:

  -- finally determining whether the Settlement Class meets all
applicable requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and thus, whether the claims of the Settlement Class
should be certified for purposes of effectuating the Settlement;

  -- determining whether the proposed Settlement of the action on
the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the
Court;

  -- considering any motion of Class Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs;

  -- considering the motion of the Plaintiff for a service award,
if any;

  -- considering whether the Court should enter the [Proposed]
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice;

  -- considering whether the releases by the Settlement Class
Members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement should be
provided; and

  -- ruling upon such other matters as the Court may deem just and
appropriate.

insideARM Perspective

insideARM will continue to report on TCPA settlements as we learn
of them.  There is no unique insideARM perspective to add to this
particular case.  The settlement speaks for itself.


COLORADO: Settles Inmates' Class Action Over Fresh Air Access
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Greene, writing for The Colorado Independent, reports that
although fresh air and sunlight come free in Colorado, they have
long been denied to hundreds of state prisoners, some of whom have
gone years -- and even a decade or more -- without access to the
outdoors.

That policy will soon end under a class-action settlement.

"It took six years in court, but we got everything we wanted from
this lawsuit," says Denver attorney Amy Robertson who, along with
students from University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, has
pursued two federal cases to give state prisoners the right to
outdoor exercise.

Colorado has long forced its highest security prisoners to spend
23 hours a day alone in their cells, with the 24th hour reserved
for either a shower or exercise in an indoor exercise room.  That
room is roughly the same size as their regular, cement block
cells, but with a pull-up bar and an open, but heavily barred
window.  The state long asserted that the narrow glint of fresh
air and view are ample substitutes for actually being outside.
Nonsense, countered the team of civil rights lawyers, who argued
that denying open air violates 8th Amendment protections against
cruel and unusual punishment.

An expert witness for the plaintiffs argued that no other state
-- not even the federal government at its ADX Supermax prison in
Florence -- has deprived prisoners outdoor exposure as much as
Colorado.  One inmate named in the case marveled at the absurdity
of describing a room with an open, but barred window as
"outdoors."

The federal government requires more stringent regulations for
providing fresh air, sunlight and outdoor exercise to livestock
and test animals than Colorado has given human beings in its
prisons.

"It amounts to its own kind of torture," says Ms. Robertson of the
Denver-based Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center
(CREEC).

The legal battle started in 2010 when inmate Troy Anderson sued
the state over mental health care at Colorado State Penitentiary
(CSP), the state's 23-year-old supermax prison in Canon City.
Among other complaints, Mr. Anderson said it was a breach of his
civil rights to have been housed there for 12 years virtually
without open air.

In 2012, the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit granted
Mr. Anderson the right to "outdoor exercise in an area that is
fully outside" including "sunlight, rain, snow and wind" three
days a week unless weather or disciplinary measures precluded it.
But rather than give Anderson an outdoor exercise area at CSP,
state corrections officials instead transferred him to the
Sterling Correctional Facility 60 days after the judge's ruling.
Anderson has told The Independent he had mixed feelings about his
legal victories because prisoners at CSP still had no outdoor
access.

"I didn't set out to do this just for myself," he wrote.
So the team of lawyers who had represented Mr. Anderson filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf the CSP prisoners who still weren't
allowed outside.

As the case meandered through federal court, the Corrections
Department was making changes to reduce the number of inmates it
houses in "administrative segregation" -- its term for solitary
confinement.  The state replaced its practice of housing most CSP
inmates alone in their cells 23 hours a day (with the 24th in the
exercise room) with a tiered system in which most inmates are
given four hours outside their cell in a group of eight. The
groups are designed to help them grow accustomed to human
interaction.

To accommodate those groups, the Corrections Department in 2014
asked the legislature for $4.7 million to build new outdoor
exercise yards at CSP where inmates will have room to run, play
basketball, walk or just sit on a bench.

The approximately 171 inmates still living under tighter, 24-
hours-a-day solitary confinement conditions have been moved to
Sterling, where they can exercise in newly built, individually
sized outdoor cages called "modules."  Under the DOC's new
policies, those prisoners will be limited to solitary confinement
conditions for 12 months, at the most -- not stuck for years on
end, as Mr. Anderson was.

A few months before the case was scheduled for trial last
November, the state asked for mediation.  It struck a deal with
the plaintiffs, requiring CSP's new outdoor exercise areas to be
complete by the end of this year and ensuring that high-security
inmates at both CSP and Sterling would have access to outdoor
exercise.  The assurance of open air applies not just to current
inmates, but also those in the future.  The settlement provides a
way for enforce the agreement if the state goes back on its word.
And it gives $410,000 in attorney's fees to the lawyers who filed
the lawsuit.

U.S. Judge William Martinez finalized the agreement on June 29.
Said DOC spokeswoman Laurie Kilpatrick: "The Department of
Corrections worked hard to develop, purpose and implement a solid
settlement agreement that addresses the issues of outdoor
recreation for both our offenders who are now housed within
Extended Restrictive Housing, as well as for the close custody
offender population now at CSP."

Ms. Robertson agrees with Ms. Kilpatrick, but has a decidedly more
touchy-feely response to the agreement.

"Because of this settlement, inmates will get to feel the sun and
wind on their faces. . . . They'll be able to experience things
like rain and snow," she said.  "After all, as one of the
plaintiffs told the judge, who doesn't want to be outside?"


COOPER CITY, FL: Fire Assessment Fees Violate Law, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ballout, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that three
residents appear to have won their class action lawsuit against
the city, in which they sought a $2.5 million refund for fire
assessment fees.

But Cooper City officials have 24 days to respond to Broward
Circuit Court Judge Marina Garcia-Wood's ruling that the city
violated Florida law in its apportioning of a fire assessment fee
from 2007 through 2009.

Attorneys representing the city declined to comment.
David Frankel, the attorney representing the three residents who
filed the lawsuit in 2011, said he expects the city to appeal.

Approximately 10,000 homeowners and business owners would be
affected by the refund.

The five-year-old case stalled for approximately two years on a
previous appeal, but there has been a lot of activity recently in
the case.

In June, plaintiffs Brenda Kezar, Walter Jolliff and Barbara
Jolliff submitted a settlement proposal to the city, reducing the
refund amount from $2.5 million to $1.5 million.  The city's
attorney said commissioners were considering the settlement.

In the meantime, the three decided to dismiss one of two counts in
the lawsuit that alleged the city improperly imposed the fee to
fund Emergency Medical Services.  Proving that became too
difficult, Mr. Frankel said.

"It really became too convoluted for us to pursue it.  Because the
city contracted with BSO, it became too tough for us to delineate
what BSO was using the money for," Mr. Frankel said.

Judge Garcia-Wood then ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the
second count, which alleges the city relied on flawed methodology
from a fire study report, compiled in 1999 by Burton & Associates,
to apportion the fire assessment fee.


CORELOGIC INC: Judge Tosses Novel Copyright Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Bay Area IP
boutique Durie Tangri scored a win in a suit that delved into
largely untested areas of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
and shut down -- for now, at least -- a major class action weapon
facing tech companies that handle protected content.

On July 5, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern
District of California tossed out a proposed class action against
CoreLogic Inc. that alleged the company violated the DMCA by
stripping out certain kinds of metadata from photos of real estate
properties.

The suit, brought by a team of lawyers including Southern
California solo Darren Quinn, was novel in that it did not allege
that CoreLogic actually infringed registered copyrights.  Instead,
real estate photographers targeted the company, which stores,
analyzes and licenses real estate listing data, under a lesser-
known provision prohibiting the intentional removal of "copyright
management information," or CMI.

The complaint centered on the fact that, when organizations of
real estate agents upload content using CoreLogic's platform, some
of the data photographers embed about who took the photo or the
licensing terms are automatically removed. Copyright class actions
are few and far between.  But the provision invoked here, Section
1202, is a potentially mighty tool for plaintiffs lawyers
precisely because it does not require infringement to trigger a
violation.  Proving infringement on a classwide basis has proven
difficult because it often involves individual-specific inquiries
about whether the copyrights were registered; with Section 1202,
that's not an issue.

The penalties can also be extremely large, ranging from $2,500 to
$25,000 per violation.  In the case of CoreLogic, which managed
roughly 2 million real estate photos, the damages could easily
have been in the billions of dollars.  Notably, a class has never
been certified under the provision -- and the judge dodged the
issue by declaring a certification motion moot after granting
summary judgment.

Judge Bashant seemed to see the lack of infringement allegations
as hamstringing the lawsuit, especially because the law requires
plaintiffs to show that the alleged violator knew or should have
known that removing CMI would make it easier for infringement to
occur.

"Although plaintiffs need not show actual infringement, the fact
that there was none is relevant to plaintiff's burden to show that
CoreLogic had a reasonable ground to believe it was likely to
happen," the judge wrote.

She also ruled that CoreLogic couldn't be held liable because
removal of the metadata was an "unintended side effect" of the way
its software was designed, rather than a deliberate action to
strip the information out.

For a firm that carried Google Inc. to an upset victory in the
books scanning litigation three years ago, Durie Tangri's victory
on the summary judgment motion is its latest win in favor of tech
companies that provide access to content over the individuals that
generate it.

Joseph Gratz -- jgratz@durietangri.com -- a partner at Durie
Tangri, said the decision should head off suits against cloud
service providers or social media sites that allow users to upload
photos.  Some services deliberately remove certain metadata --
such as where a photo was taken -- with the aim of protecting
users' privacy, he noted; prior to the ruling, they may have been
vulnerable to a suit under Section1202.

"I think this opinion forecloses that [kind of] case," Mr. Gratz
said.  "There may be plaintiffs' lawyers that disagree with me,
but I guess we'll see."

Count Quinn as among those who disagree.  He said he plans to
appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in order to clarify the boundaries of the law.  "There's
no judge across this nation that has had to grapple with these
issues in a manner that this case has raised," he said.

Mr. Quinn underscored that the preservation of metadata in
professional photos is extremely important to photographers, since
it allows them to determine whether a published photo is theirs.
"This opinion, if it stands, will make it harder for photographers
to assert their rights under Section 1202 because it is being
interpreted narrowly."

Also representing the plaintiffs were Schneider Rothman
Intellectual Property Law Group in Florida and Hulett Harper
Stewart in San Diego.


CRAIG HAMILTON: Rowe Seeks Certification of Painters Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled GREGORY ROWE and
CODY PILKINTON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CRAIG HAMILTON dba HAMILTON PAINTING,
the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03259-RK (W.D. Mo.), ask the Court
to certify this class:

     "all current and former employees employed by Hamilton
      Painting as painters from three years prior to filing this
      lawsuit through its conclusion who were not paid proper
      overtime wages when they worked more than forty (40) hours
      a week."

The Plaintiffs further request an order:

     1. compelling Defendant Craig Hamilton dba Hamilton Painting
        to produce within 14 days of the order granting this
        motion, the full name, all known addresses, email
        addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential class
        members;

     2. permitting Plaintiffs' Counsel to send, within 14 days of
        receipt of the class list from Hamilton, the Court-
        authorized notice and consent to sue form via U.S. Mail
        and electronic mail to putative class members;

     3. allowing 60 days for putative class members to return
        their consent to sue form to Plaintiffs' counsel for
        filing with the court;

     4. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to send a second,
        identical copy of the Notice and consent to sue form to
        members of the putative class 30 days into the notice
        period, via U.S. Mail and email, reminding them of the
        deadline for the submission of the consent to sue form;
        and

     5. appointing the undersigned counsel, Johnson Becker
        P.L.L.C and Bartimus, Frickleton and Robertson, P.C. as
        counsel for members of the putative Class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          David H. Grounds, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436 1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436 1801
          E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
                  mnephew@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Michelle L. Marvel, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON
          AND ROBERTSON, P.C.
          11150 Overbrook Rd. No 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266 2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266 2366
          E-mail: MMarvel@bflawfirm.com


CRYPTSY: Paul Vernon Regrets Not Sounding Alarm
-----------------------------------------------
Jessica Lipscomb, writing for Miami New Times, reports that
earlier this year, Delray Beach-based Bitcoin exchange company
Cryptsy abruptly shut down, locking hundreds of thousands of users
out of the system and leaving them no way to withdraw their
digital currencies.  In January, Broward County attorney
David Silver filed a class-action lawsuit against Cryptsy and its
owner, Paul "Big Vern" Vernon, accusing him of stealing or losing
at least $5 million in customer funds.

New Times chronicled the rise and fall of Cryptsy.  But
Mr. Vernon wasn't available for comment for the same reason
Mr. Silver -- and later a court-appointed receiver -- had been
unable to speak with the tech guru: Mr. Vernon had apparently fled
to China.  According to his ex-wife, he went there with a
girlfriend he had been hiding for nearly a year.

A day after New Times' story was published, however, a person
claiming to be Mr. Vernon sent us an email agreeing to answer some
questions.  He refused to send photo verification but used an old
Yahoo email account that was formerly attributed to Vernon.

Many of Cryptsy's users felt betrayed when Mr. Vernon announced in
January that someone had stolen millions of dollars' worth of
Bitcoin and Litecoin in a hack in July 2014.  Mr. Vernon failed to
inform the users about what had happened and continued to make
assurances that everything was OK for a full year and a half
afterward. (Mr. Silver and others, it's worth noting, doubt the
hacking tale; they contend Mr. Vernon took the money.)

Mr. Vernon now says he regrets not sounding the alarm earlier.

"The plan was to use a portion of revenue to replenish the
wallets.  However, diminishing Bitcoin price and volume turned out
to not go in our favor," he wrote to New Times.  "At the time, I
had two choices, disclose and shut down or try to continue running
and reacquire user funds.  Because we were doing well at the time,
I attempted option #2."

Before the alleged hack, Mr. Vernon says, the company had first-
year revenues of close to $3 million.  During that time, from May
2013 to May 2014, he says he paid himself $1.1 million "via the
regular payroll system, base salary + quarterly bonuses."

Mr. Vernon declined to answer a number of New Times' questions,
including whether he would cooperate with the court-appointed
receiver in the civil case, or if he ever used or diverted his
users' funds for personal or family consumption.  He also wouldn't
say where he currently lives or if he plans to return to the U.S.


CUNA MUTUAL: Court Preliminary Approved Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David Stewart Cercone entered an order in the class
action lawsuit styled RONALD ALLEN OGROZOVICH and DONNA LYNN
OGROZOVICH, Husband and Wife, Brenda RENNER, and on behalf of a
group of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. CUNA
MUTUAL GROUP a/k/a CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY, its affiliates
and subsidiaries, CLEARVIEW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and GNC
COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:09-cv-
00371-DSC (W.D. Penn.), preliminarily approving this Settlement
Class:

     "all persons in Pennsylvania who enrolled in monthly premium
      credit disability insurance on or after July 9, 2003 from
      CMFG Life via GNC in conjunction with a loan from GNC and
      who were charged interest on the premiums for such credit
      disability insurance from July 9, 2003 to July 1, 2012."

Brenda Renner is appointed as representative of the Settlement
Class and Hon. Kenneth R. Behrend as designated counsel for the
Settlement Class.

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


DANK LANDSCAPE: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
BAYRON GUIFARRO MALDONADO and JORGE E. CHINCHILLA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
DANK LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, INC. d/b/a DANK TREEEXPERTS, DANKINC.,
and ROBERT MARSALONA, an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-03688 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2016), seeks to recover damages
for egregious violations of New York State labor laws and federal
wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at Dank
Tree Experts.

The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in
an amount exceeding $100,000.00. The Plaintiffs also seek
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and
equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate.

Dank Landscaping is a lawn and garden service company located in
Massapequa, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Puja Sharma, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 113.75
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


DEL CITY WIRE: Faces Bones Suit in D. Conn.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Del City Wire Co.,
Inc. The case is captioned Bones Kart Shop, L.L.C., a Connecticut
limited liability company, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Del
City Wire Co., Inc., and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-01110 (D. Conn., July 1, 2016).

Del City offers a full range of electrical supplies including
wire, cable, electrical terminals, connectors, relays, circuit
breakers, electrical wire, fuses, and switches.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358 5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571 0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


DETROIT, MI: Davis Seeks Certification of Marijuana Users Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit entitled TIMOTHY DAVIS
and HATEMA DAVIS, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DETROIT, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-10547-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), move the
Court to enter an order for class certification.

The Plaintiffs propose this class:

     "(a) individuals who were the owners and/or occupants of
      homes and/or businesses engaged in the licensed
      distribution of marijuana for medical purposes; (b) who
      were subjected to search and/or seizure by agents and/or
      members of the Detroit Police Department's Narcotics' Unit;
      (c) from the period of February 11, 2012 until the date of
      judgment or settlement of this case; (d) who were never
      convicted of any offense arising from the search and/or
      seizure; (e) whose search and seizure were executed without
      probable cause; and (f) where such searches and/or seizures
      were conducted pursuant to Defendant City of Detroit's
      policies, practices, and/or customs."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pIG4jIWF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis A. Dettmer, Esq.
          Michael R. Dezsi, Esq.
          DETTMER & DEZSI, PLLC
          Attorneys for Plaintiffs
          615 Griswold St, Suite 1600
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 281-8090
          E-mail: ddettmeresq@yahoo.com
                  mdezsi@dezsilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Calvert Bailey, Esq.
          Jerry L. Ashford, Esq.
          CITY OF DETROIT AND FLANAGAN
          2 Woodward Ave, Suite 500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 237 3004
          E-mail: bailc@detroitmi.gov
                  ashfj@detroitmi.gov

               - and -

          Lawrence T. Garcia, Esq.
          GARCIA LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3011 W. Grand Blvd., Suite 2500
          Detroit, MI 48202
          Telephone: (877) 643 6255
          E-mail: lgarcia@garcialawgrouppllc.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Non-Responsive Plaintiffs Tossed From "McZeal"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sam Sparks of the Western District of Texas, Austin
Division, granted defendants' motions to dismiss in the case
ALFRED McZEAL et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY et al., Defendants, Case No. A-16-CA-430-SS (W.D. Tex.)

Alfred McZeal, Frederic Gladle, Barbara Gladle, J. Lydia
Hernandez, Eutimio C. Hernandez, Lofton Ryan Burris, Soledad
Solano, Diemetrio Loya, and Jose Solano, all proceeding pro se,
brought a nationwide class action against thirty defendants
including Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Liberty Bank & Trust Company,
Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C., L. Keller Mackie, Brandon B.
Wolf, Michael W. Zientz, Leslie N. Mann, MidSouth Bank, N.A., Jay
L. Angelle, and SulmeyerKupetz, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., EMC
Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A..

Plaintiffs' sprawling, conclusory, and often incoherent complaint
sets forth over 20 varying types of claims against the 30
defendants, including securities fraud, civil rights and
constitutional violations, violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, Fair Housing Act, Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, and a variety of consumer protection
statutes, breach of contract, trespass, conspiracy and others.

Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, Liberty Bank & Trust Company,
Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C., L. Keller Mackie, Brandon B.
Wolf, Michael W. Zientz, Leslie N. Mann, MidSouth Bank, N.A., Jay
L. Angelle, SulmeyerKupetz, Elissa D. Miller, JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., EMC Mortgage LLC, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., have all moved
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief
and, in several cases, for lack of personal jurisdiction and
failure of service of process. Plaintiffs have not responded to
any of the motions.

Judge Sparks granted defendants' motions to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Sparks's order dated June 7, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/8Dxdrwfrom Leagle.com.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, US Bank, National Association, EMC
Mortgage, LLC and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA, Defendants,
represented by Andrew G. Spaniol -- andrew.spaniol@bryancave.com -
- at Bryan Cave, LLP

Midsouth National Bank, NA, L. J. Angelle, SulmyerKupetz and
Elissa Diane Miller,   Defendants, represented by Walter A.
Herring -- W Herring@munckwilson.com -- at Munck Wilson Mandala,
LLP

Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Defendant, represented by Benjamin David Lee
Foster -- dfoster@lockelord.com -- Matthew H. Davis --
mdavis@lockelord.com -- Robert T. Mowrey -- rmowrey@lockelord.com
-- at Locke Lord LLP

Liberty Bank & Trust Company, Defendant, represented by Fred Lee
Butler -- lee.butler@arlaw.com -- at Adams and Reese LLP

Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C, L. Keller Mackie, Brandon B. Wolf,
Michael W. Zientz, Leslie N. Mann, Defendants, represented by Mark
Douglas Cronenwett -- mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com -- at Mackie Wolf
Zientz & Mann, P.C.


FACEBOOK INC: Biometrics Suit Outcome May Impact Other Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Grimoldby, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
while technological privacy advocates cheered, a California
federal judge this spring sent shockwaves through the tech world
and many other industries, determining an Illinois law that has
spawned a wave of litigation already could be applied to
businesses based virtually anywhere, so long as they did business
in Illinois.

In May, U.S. District Judge James Donato said Facebook would need
to fight off a class action lawsuit brought under the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, even though the Menlo Park,
Calif.-based social media giant had succeeded in transferring the
case from Chicago to San Francisco federal court.

Facebook could be responsible for millions in damages if it loses
the case, which was filed by three Illinois residents who alleged
the social media company had "secretly amassed the world's largest
privately held database of consumer biometrics data" through its
facial recognition technology, including its Tag Suggestions tool,
which relies on face templates to help users identify their
friends and family in photographs.

While the case has a long way to go, decisions made along the way
could greatly impact companies, whether or not they actually have
a physical presence in Illinois.

In fact, at least five companies -- including Snapchat, Google and
Shutterfly -- have resolved or are still facing similar claims
under BIPA.  And a plaintiff-friendly ruling in the Facebook case
could create incentive for attorneys to target other companies, in
their hometown courts, under the Illinois law.

Thinking broadly

The Internet Association, a political lobbying organization that
represents nearly 40 Internet companies, has seen a growing class
action bar that has filed suit against its member companies for
violations of privacy statutes.

In the Facebook lawsuit, it's a concerning precedent that Illinois
and its BIPA will be applied under a choice of law clause, an
Internet Association spokesperson said, particularly because many
Internet Association member companies are headquartered in
California, and it is common practice for users to sign an
agreement stating they agree to be governed by California law.

There is evidence that the plaintiffs clicked on the Facebook user
agreement stipulating to be governed by California law --
something Judge Donato noted in his ruling.

Still, Judge Donato felt applying BIPA was necessary.

"If California law is applied, the Illinois policy of protecting
its citizens' privacy interests in their biometric data,
especially in the context of dealing with 'major national
corporations' like Facebook, would be written out of existence,"
he wrote in his ruling.

"Illinois will suffer a complete negation of its biometric privacy
protections for its citizens if California law is applied.  In
contrast, California law and policy will suffer little, if
anything at all, if BIPA is applied."

Whether Facebook's facial recognition technology actually violates
BIPA -- which defines biometrics, or biologically unique
identifiers, as "a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint,
or scan of hand or face geometry" -- has not yet been determined.

But a broader question that should be asked of this case -- and in
all similar class actions -- is whether the plaintiffs must show
concrete injury to recover statutory damages, the Internet
Association feels.

The group weighed in on the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
Spokeo v. Robins, in which Spokeo -- which brands itself as the
"people search engine" -- was accused of violating the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act when it published false, albeit,
positive, information about a man.  In that case, the Supreme
Court determined plaintiffs must show some evidence of concrete
harm to have standing to sue.

"In our brief, we explained that Internet companies are
'frequently targeted by opportunistic lawsuits,' like the one in
Spokeo, under various statutes with a private right of action,
including the FCRA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act," the
Internet Association wrote in a blog post.

"In these cases, the alleged harm is 'a bare statutory' violation
and not a 'concrete, actual harm.'  We called on the Supreme Court
to course-correct on this issue since our member companies
frequently have to settle these lawsuits despite a lack of
concrete harm to the plaintiffs involved."

Specific to the Facebook case, the plaintiffs alleged the company
violated BIPA by not properly informing the plaintiffs that their
biometric data was being collected and stored through Facebook's
facial recognition software and Tag Suggestions; by not properly
detailing the purpose for or length of time the data would be
collected, stored or used; by not providing a timetable of when
the data would be destroyed; and by failing to receive written
permission from the plaintiffs to collect, use or store the data
in the first place.

If the Spokeo ruling is followed in the Facebook case, it will be
determined there is no harm resulting in the use of the facial
recognition technology.

But some fear that a plaintiff's victory in the Facebook case
could spell disaster for any business that uses biometrics --
regardless if it is headquartered in Illinois.

Plaintiffs lawyers have used Illinois' venue laws -- which govern
whether a lawsuit can be heard in a particular county, state or
federal jurisdiction -- to bring huge numbers of asbestos-related
litigation in such venues as downstate Madison County.

Judge Donato's ruling that even cases heard outside of Illinois
should follow Illinois law could create another large litigation
field for enterprising attorneys looking to sue under BIPA.

The battle over biometrics usage may come down to this: Privacy
advocates believe companies should ask before obtaining such
sensitive information, while businesses say, "I don't think so,"
said Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, a California nonprofit digital rights group.


FORT WAYNE, IN: Rietdorf Appeals N.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brian Rietdorf, Quinnette Oden and Aaron Hall filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Brian Rietdorf,
et al. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Case No. 1:15-cv-00113-JVB-
SLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Civil Rights Act.  The
appellate case is captioned as Brian Rietdorf, et al. v. City of
Fort Wayne, Indiana, Case No. 16-8012, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 S Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802
          Telephone: (260) 424-0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424-0712
          E-mail: cmyers@myers-law.com

Defendant-Respondent City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, is represented
by:

          Carolyn M. Trier, Esq.
          TRIER LAW OFFICE
          P.O. Box 5528
          Fort Wayne, IN 46895-0000
          Telephone: (260) 485-7000
          E-mail: carolyntrier@trierlaw.com


GARDEN APARTMENTS: "Rincon" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Rafael Benito Rincon and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Garden Apartments, Inc. and Alexander Abel Daoud,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-22918 (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2016),
seeks overtime and/or minimum wages, double damages and reasonable
attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rincon worked in Garden Apartments as a maintenance man. He claims
to be denied overtime and/or minimum wages.

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement Payout Begins in Gas Mileage Case
------------------------------------------------------------
John Matarese, writing for WCPO, reports that owners of some
popular SUV's are starting to receive money in the mail, as a
result of a multi-million dollar class action settlement.

And for once, we are not talking some paltry $10 settlement check,
as this one could mean hundreds of dollars in your pocket if your
vehicle is eligible.

Unexpected FedEx Envelope

Beatrice Foree and her daughter Holly opened their door the other
day to find a FedEx packet from Chevrolet, stating they would be
receiving a rebate due to false gas mileage claims.

The letter said the Forees would be receiving $500, in the form of
a debit card, because the window sticker on her 2016 Chevy
Traverse overstated the gas mileage by one mile per gallon.

"It says we apologize for this mistake and would like to reimburse
you," Beatrice Foree said.

One MPG, Big Cost Difference

$500 might seem like a lot of money for something so minor: a one
mile per gallon discrepancy.  Everyone but the most ardent hyper-
milers would never notice a one mpg difference.

But over time, all that gas money adds up.  The letter shows how
that one mile per gallon difference could mean the difference
between paying $2,700 and $3,500 a year for gasoline.

Still, the Forees were not sure if GM was trying to sell them
something.  "There are so many scams today," Beatrice said.

But the good news is there are no strings attached. The following
vehicles all qualify for rebates:

2016 Chevy Traverse
2016 GMC Acadia
2016 Buick Enclave
Rebates range from $300 to more than $1,000 depending how much you
have driven it and whether it was purchased or leased.

It's similar to a rebate last year offered some Hyundai and Kia
owners for overstated mileage.

While this affects only 2016 models, more could be affected in the
future.

A new class action claims GM SUV's from 2009 through 2015 also
overstated their gas mileage.  That case has yet to be settled,
but could mean SUV owners all the way back to 2009 could receive
compensation in the coming months.


GOOGLE INC: EEOC Investigates Discrimination Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Guynn, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission is investigating complaints of
age discrimination by Google, according to a lawsuit filed in
federal court.

Cheryl Fillekes, a systems engineer who interviewed with but was
not hired by Google when she was 47, made reference to the EEOC
investigation in her age discrimination lawsuit filed in U.S.
District Court in San Jose, according to the San Jose Mercury
News.

The EEOC did not respond to a request for comment.  Google
declined to comment.

The investigation comes as Silicon Valley finds itself in the
national spotlight for its lack of racial and gender diversity.
Earlier this month Google released the racial and gender breakdown
of its workforce for the third time.  It does not disclose a
breakdown by age.  Tech leaders have for years placed a premium on
youth, earning Silicon Valley the reputation for being "one the
most ageist places in America."

Ms. Fillekes joined an age discrimination lawsuit filed in April
2015 by Robert Heath who says he was turned down for a software
engineering job in 2011 when he was 60 years old, despite having
experience working at IBM, Compaq and General Dynamics.

Mr. Heath's lawsuit cites a survey of employees by Payscale.com
that found that Google had a median age of 29 in 2013.  It also
refers to an earlier lawsuit in which a former Google executive,
Brian Reid, said he was called "an old fuddy duddy" and told his
ideas were "too old to matter."  That case was settled.

According to the Mercury News, Google admitted it in court filings
that it did not hire Mr. Heath and Ms. Fillekes after reaching out
to them.  "Google alleges its actions were motivated by reasonable
factors other than age," the company said in July 2015.

Mr. Heath and Ms. Fillekes are both seeking to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action.


HOMERO GARZA: September 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. on July 5 disclosed that on June 15, 2016, a
class action was filed against Homero Garza, Stuart Fraser, GAW
Miners, LLC, and ZenMiner LLC in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.  The action was filed on behalf of all
persons or entities who, between June 1, 2014 and the present,
purchased or acquired Hardware-Hosted Mining, Cloud-Hosted Mining,
Hashlets, Hashpoints, Hashstakers, or Paycoins from GAW Miners,
LLC and ZenMiner LLC.

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts claims against defendants for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and omitted material facts in connection with the sale
of Hardware-Hosted Mining, Cloud-Hosted Mining, Hashlets,
Hashpoints, Hashstakers, and Paycoins.  In addition to federal
securities law violations, plaintiffs also assert state law fraud
claims and claims for alleged violations of the Connecticut
Uniform Securities Act.

If you purchased or acquired Hardware-Hosted Mining, Cloud-Hosted
Mining, Hashlets, Hashpoints, Hashstakers, or Paycoins from GAW
Miners, LLC or ZenMiner LLC and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff
in the action, you must file a motion with the Court no later than
Tuesday, September 6, 2016.  Any class member may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you
wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Seth Ard, Esq. at Susman
Godfrey LLP (sard@susmangodfrey.com, 212-336-8330).

Plaintiffs are represented by Susman Godfrey, LLP and Izard,
Kindall & Raabe, LLP.  Both firms have significant experience in
prosecuting investor class actions.


HYPER NETWORK: Faces "Gorgis" Suit in S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyper Network
Solutions of Florida, LLC. The case is captioned Romio Gorgis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Hyper Network Solutions of Florida, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01725-L-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 1,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. M. James Lorenz.

Hyper Network was founded in 2006. The company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of prescription drugs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


KRISPY KREME: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on July 5 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, case no. 1:16-cv-00612, on behalf of
shareholders of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. ("Krispy Kreme" or
the "Company") who held Krispy Kreme securities on the record
date, June 24, 2016, and have been harmed by Krispy Kreme's and
its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with  the proposed sale of the
Company to the private Dutch company JAB Holdings B.V. ("JAB")
through its Delaware company Cotton Parent, Inc.

On May 8, 2016, Krispy Kreme and JAB jointly announced that they
had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger
Agreement") under which Krispy Kreme will merge with and into
Cotton Merger Sub, Inc,, with Krispy Kreme surviving as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Cotton Parent, Inc. (the "Proposed
Transaction").  The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
is expected to occur on July 27, 2016.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/KKDnotice

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Board, Krispy Kreme shareholders will
receive $21.00 in cash per share for each share of Krispy Kreme
they own.  The complaint claims that the offer is inadequate and
does not reflect the Company's positive financial results in
recent quarters as well as it below at least one analyst's price
target of $23.00 per share.

The complaint alleges that the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement (the
"14A") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
provides materially incomplete and misleading information about
the Company and the Proposed Transaction, in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The 14A fails to provide
Krispy Kreme's shareholders with material information concerning
the financial and procedural fairness of the Proposed Transaction.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, the Merger Agreement
includes a non-solicitation provision, an unlimited matching
rights provision, and a $42 million termination fee which
essentially ensure that a superior bidder will not emerge, as any
potential suitor will undoubtedly be deterred from expending the
time, cost, and effort of making a superior proposal while knowing
that JAB can easily foreclose a competing bid.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 5, 2016.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com


LENDING CLUB: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Andy Parker, writing for, reports that the situation is getting
more complicated for the troubled online-lender LendingClub Corp
as a class action lawsuit has been filed against the company.  The
class action lawsuit has been filed by Khang & Khang LLP and the
law firm revealed that the suit revolves around possible violation
of securities laws by LendingClub.

The class action is filed on behalf of LendingClub Corp investors
who acquired shares in the company during a certain period defined
as the class period between December 11, 2014 and May 6, 2016.

Investors who acquired shares of LendingClub during the class
period have been encouraged to contact the law firm todiscuss
their rights in the class action issue.

However, Khang & Khang said in a press release that the class
action had not been certified, which means that investors are not
represented by an attorney until the certification is official.

What is the complaint?

It is alleged that LendingClub was not honest with its investors
during the class period.  Among other things, the company is said
to have failed to disclose that its internal controls were unable
to ensure that loans that the company provided conformed to the
criteria of its customers.  Additionally, the company is accused
of not revealing that its internal controls were inadequate in
ensuring that interest in third-party deals was properly and
timely disclosed to investors.

Because of the failure to make full disclosures about its internal
controls, Khang & Khang says that LendingClub ended up publishing
false and misleading statements.  But when the true details came
out, investors in the company suffered damages. As such, the law
firm wants the company to be held responsible for violation of
Federal securities laws.

LendingClub Corp fired its CEO in May and recently promoted Scott
Sanborn to the position of permanent CEO as part of the efforts to
restore investor confidence following the weak internal controls
fallout.


LIPOCINE INC: "Morassi" Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Anthony Morassi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lipocine Inc., Mahesh V. Patel
and Morgan R. Brown, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04067 (D.N.J.,
July 6, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company, which
develops pharmaceutical products using its oral drug delivery
technology in the areas of men's and women's health. The Company
is a Delaware corporation with offices in Lawrenceville, New
Jersey.

Defendant allegedly failed to disclose that its new drug
application for LPCN 1021, an oral testosterone replacement
therapy, was disapproved by the United States Food and Drug
Administration.

Shares of Lipocine fell $3.17 per share or over 50% to close at
$3.10 per share on June 29, 2016. Plaintiff owns shares of
Lipocine and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman
     J. Alexander Hood II
     Marc Gorrie
     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


LIPOCINE INC: August 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Lipocine Inc. ("Lipocine" or the "Company") concerning
possible violations of federal securities laws between June 30,
2015 and June 28, 2016 (the "Class Period").  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the Firm in advance of the August 30, 2016 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

You can also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-
713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com

No class has been certified in the above action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period the Company
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Lipocine's filing of its New Drug Application to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration for LPCN 1021 (the Company's lead
product candidate) contained deficiencies; and as a result,
Lipocine's statements about its business and operations were false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  When this
information entered the market, investors suffered losses.

Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.


LOANME INC.: Faces "Goggans" Suit in C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LoanMe, Inc. The
case is captioned Renee Goggans, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LoanMe, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01223-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal., July 1,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Andrew J. Guilford.

LoanMe offers unsecured personal loans and small business loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM PC
          11622 El Camino Real Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 870 0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684 3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com


LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Faces Class Action Over Flint Water Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Susman
Godfrey L.L.P., along with the NAACP and other attorneys, have
filed a state class action lawsuit on behalf of four Genesee
County residents and all other people and businesses of Flint,
Michigan that have been harmed by exposure to toxic levels of lead
and other hazards from the city's drinking water.

The state civil suit filed in the Circuit Court in Genesee County
alleges that Defendants Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN) and
Veolia North America (Veolia), two engineering firms who consulted
on the city's switch to Flint River water, neglected their
professional duties, gave disastrously bad advice, and ignored
several red flags that should have led them to suspect corrosion
problems in Flint's water system.

Flint hired LAN in 2013 to help with its transition from water
provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) to
water sourced from the Flint River.  The Flint River proved to be
much more corrosive than DWSD water, and city residents
immediately reported problems.  Within weeks, the water became
discolored and foul-smelling and levels of harmful trihalomethanes
increased to levels exceeding EPA guidelines.  In the summer of
2014, corroded pipes provided an environment for harmful
Legionella bacteria to thrive, leading to an outbreak of deadly
Legionnaires' disease.  In early 2015, the city hired Veolia as an
additional water consultant to address problems with Flint water.
But despite warning signs that would have been obvious to any
reasonably competent engineer, both LAN and Veolia failed to
identify the root cause of Flint's problems: corrosion of pipes in
the Flint water system.  Had LAN and Veolia undertaken a standard
root cause analysis, they would have discovered that Flint pipes
were gradually leaching lead into the water supply, poisoning city
residents.  "Sadly, LAN and Veolia were hired to provide expert
analysis and thoughtful fixes, but they failed on both accounts
and left the citizens of Flint exposed to infected and poisonous
water," stated Ted Leopold with the law firm of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll and one of the lead attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

LAN and Veolia compounded their mistakes when they recommended
that Flint double the ferric chloride in its water. Ferric
chloride is acidic, and made the already problematic Flint River
water even more corrosive.  Moreover, LAN and Veolia provided
false assurances of safety that allowed citizens and businesses to
continue to drink dangerously contaminated water. Meanwhile, Flint
government offices quietly switched to bottled water.

The complaint alleges that LAN's and Veolia's decisions and
actions caused substantial personal injuries to children and
adults.  Lead poising can result in serious damage to children's
central and peripheral nervous systems, stunt growth, impair
hearing, and impair the formation and function of blood cells. The
effect of lead poisoning on children's brain development is
particularly harmful, causing reduced IQ and serious behavioral
problems.  Lead exposure can be seriously harmful to adults as
well, causing serious cardiac and reproductive problems.
Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered terrible personal injuries
as a result of LAN's and Veolia's failures and the child-members
of the Class will continue to suffer damages for years to come
such as loss of economic earnings.  "Unfortunately, Flint citizens
have been left to suffer the consequences of poor decision making
by so-called experts that the state authorities relied upon to
address and fix the problems," stated
Steve Morrissey -- smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com -- with the law
firm of Susman Godfrey and co-lead counsel with Mr. Leopold.

Flint residents have also suffered devastating losses to their
property. Flint's corrosive water has permanently damaged water
pipes on residents' property -- pipes that must be replaced at the
owners' cost -- and the pipes, fixtures and appliances in
residents' houses.  The crisis has also reduced the value of Flint
homes, leaving many homeowners in a catch-22: because of the
damage to their pipes caused by LAN's and Veolia's negligence,
residents' homes are no longer valuable enough to serve as
collateral for the loans they need to replace their pipes.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Chua Seeks Certification of Class & Sub-classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned CHARMAINE
CHUA, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS (C.D. Cal.), move the
Court to certify a proposed damages class and sub-classes:

Damages class:

     All persons who were present at either 6th and Hope on
     November 26, 2014, or Beverly and Alvarado on November 28,
     2014, and who were kettled, detained, and/or arrested, then
     denied OR release by the LAPD, all in association with the
     protest against the grand jury decision in Ferguson,
     Missouri in the killing of Michael Brown.

Damages sub-classes:

     1. Damages Sub-Class No 1 (6th and Hope Sub-Class)
        (represented by Plaintiffs Chua, Hicks and Rivera): those
        persons who were present on November 26, 2014 near or at
        6th and Hope Streets and who were arrested by the LAPD in
        association with a protest against the grand jury
        decision in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing of Michael
        Brown and who either were not prosecuted or had their
        criminal charges resolved favorably.

     2. Damages Sub-Class No. 2 (Beverly and Alvarado Hope Sub-
        Class) (represented by Plaintiff Todd): those persons who
        were present on November 28, 2014, on a public sidewalk
        near or at the intersection of Alvarado and Beverly
        Boulevard and who were detained, handcuffed, interrogated
        and/or searched in association with a protest against the
        grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing
        of Michael Brown.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b0zN7AHS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT
          234 Colorado Boulevard, Suite 230
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 844 7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844 7670
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
          Paul Hoffman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
          3110 Main Street, Suite 210
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 393 3055
          Facsimile: (310) 451 3858
          E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com
                  hoffpaul@aol.com

               - and -

          Catherine Sweetser, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW,
          HARRIS & HOFFMAN
          732 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 396 0731
          Facsimile: (310) 399 7040
          E-mail: catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com

               - and -

          Colleen M. Flynn, SBN 234281
          LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 9001 0
          Telephone: 213 252 9444
          Facsimile: 213 252 0091
          E-mail: cflynnlaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR
          2108 Cove Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90039
          Telephone: 323 696 2299
          E-mail: matthewstrugar@gmail.com


MASTERCARD: Faces Class Action in UK Over "Interchange" Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Poppy Trowbridge, writing for Sky News, reports that Mastercard is
facing a GBP19 billion damages claim -- the biggest in UK legal
history -- for allegedly imposing "anti-competitive" charges on
consumers.

As many as 40 million people could be in line for compensation
from the firm, according to lawyers, with some payouts in the
hundreds of pounds.

The class action case suggests MasterCard infringed EU law by
imposing charges, known as "interchange" fees, on the use of
MasterCard debit and credit cards.

It claims Mastercard's fees were "illegal" and set at an "anti-
competitive, high level".

In a statement, MasterCard said it "firmly disagrees with the
basis of this legal claim".

The company added: "MasterCard is committed to providing ever more
convenient, safe and secure payments to all our customers,
including consumers, retailers, governments and banks."

Walter Merricks, the consumer representative fronting the case,
believed UK consumers, including cash purchasers -- not just
MasterCard holders -- have lost money as a result.

He said these fees were a significant cost for retailers, a cost
that was then passed on through increased prices of goods and
services.

He told Sky News: "I want consumers to know that it is possible to
take on a large organization that has behaved badly.

"The prices of everything we all bought from 1992 to 2008 were
higher than they should have been as a result of the unlawful
conduct of MasterCard.

"This case should send a signal to companies that break
competition laws at the expense of UK consumers that they do so at
their financial peril."

The case will be heard before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, a
specialist court that hears competition law disputes, and is
likely to begin in September.

It is one of the first big tests of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The Act enables a collective damages claim to be brought on behalf
of a class of people who have suffered loss.

Under the new rules, all UK consumers who have lost out
automatically become part of the group of claimants unless they
explicitly opt-out.


MDL 1360: Court Granted Former Exec's Bid to Enforce Injunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stewart Dalzell of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted petitioner's motion to enforce permanent
injunction in the case entitled IN RE: RITE AID CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To CLASS ACTIONS, MDL
Docket No. 1360, Master File No. 99-1349 (E.D. Pa.)

In 1999, Rite Aid Corporation shareholders brought a securities
class action against the company after it publicly announced
disappointing earnings results for that year. The parties settled
the case and as part of the settlement agreement approved on
August 16, 2001, the court issued a permanent injunction that
precludes actions that are based upon, arising out of or relating
to the settled claims.

Fourteen months after the injunction was entered, Rite Aid sued
Franklin C. Brown, a former Rite Aid executive in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, and civil conspiracy
after he was charged in an Indictment in connection with his
fiduciary duties to Rite Aid. Brown is a Released Party under that
Settlement Agreement.

The litigation has languished for years in the Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania as Brown served jail
time. In late 2015 and early 2016, after reviewing the August 16,
2001 permanent injunction, Brown's newly-retained counsel moves to
enforce the complete bar order in an attempt to extricate Brown
from the fourteen-year old state court case.

Judge Stewart Dalzell granted Brown's motion to enforce the
permanent injunction order and enjoin Rite Aid from pursuing the
Cumberland County Action.

A copy of Judge Dalzell's memorandum dated June 7, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/e5DG4Kfrom Leagle.com.


MERCHANTS ADJUSTMENT: Faces "McDonald" Suit in S.D. Ala.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants Adjustment
Service, Inc. The case is captioned Eddie McDonald, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gregory
B. McAtee and Merchants Adjustment Service, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00347 (S.D. Ala., July 1, 2016).

Merchants Adjustment is a full service medical, commercial, &
consumer bad debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road No. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


MLS PLAYERS: Yedline's Valuation May Rise Following Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Brown, writing for ChronicleLive, reports that former
Sunderland loanee Deandre Yedlin's valuation could rise due to a
legal wrangle in US football.

But youth clubs in America taking players -- including the
Tottenham Hotspur defender -- and their union to court to seek
compensation for their development insist the move is not a
"shakedown".

Youth set-ups are trying to force the US game's governing bodies -
- primarily Major League Soccer and US Soccer -- to recognize and
abide by FIFA's solidarity payment rules, under which clubs
playing any part in a player's youth development gain a cut of any
subsequent transfer fee involving that player, and to repay those
players' training costs.

As such, Mr. Yedlin's former team Crossfire Premier of Washington,
along with the Dallas Texans and Illinois' Sockers FC, have filed
a class action lawsuit in a Texas federal court against the MLS
Players Union (MLSPU), and nominally cited Mr. Yedlin, Clint
Dempsey and Michael Bradley in it.

Mr. Dempsey played for the Texans before a series of moves
totalling around GBP15 million in transfer fees, while Bradley has
commanded a similar figure across multiple moves since coming
through the ranks with the Sockers.

"The youth clubs that filed this suit against us are well
compensated for the services that they provide to children under
the terms that the clubs themselves set and agree upon," said
MLSPU board member Ethan Finlay.

"It's absurd that they would try to shakedown the very few players
who come through their ranks and go on to play professionally."

But a statement for the youth clubs claimed compensation would be
quid pro quo for players having been developed under costly
scholarship programs, and in turn allow future talent to be
developed.

"This is not 'double-dipping' by the clubs here, this is not a
'shakedown'," read the statement.

"Almost all players at any US youth soccer club that would be
involved with a claim of training compensation or solidarity fees
would have had fee scholarships in place.

"How does the MLSPU expect the youth soccer clubs to cover both
the highest end of development and lowest level of entry into our
soccer system with adequate fee scholarships?

"The US youth clubs submit that there is an existing structure
that was purposely designed to help in achieving these goals -
it's the FIFA (solidarity payments).

"Everyone in US Soccer but MLSPU views adherence to the FIFA
regulations as a method to bring revenue into the US youth soccer
system, both amateur and professional, to open up soccer to all
potential players from all economic backgrounds.

"The MLSPU position here is isolationist, regressive and limits
the progress of US soccer for both women and men."

But MLSPU executive director Bob Foose said: "The FIFA system that
these clubs are seeking to exploit would be immensely damaging to
the development of soccer in the United States.

"By filing this lawsuit against all players even before FIFA or US
Soccer has acted, these youth clubs have revealed their true
colors.

"Their focus appears not to be on the development of players, but
instead on ensuring themselves a piece of the action when a player
makes it professionally.

"We will aggressively defend ourselves, our members and all
players against this baseless suit."

Mr. Foose added that training compensation and solidarity payments
"take money and opportunity away from our players" and harm their
chances of transfers to foreign clubs because they would "add a
tax on (their transfer)".

Mr. Yedlin spent last season on loan at Sunderland, who are
understood to be keen to sign the right-back on a permanent basis
but only for a fee of around GBP3 million.


NEW INDUSTRIES: "Lawrence" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Jerkyle Lawrence and Alvin Griffin, on behalf of themselves and
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New Industries,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00994 (W.D. La., July 6, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

New Industries is a corporation organized under the laws of
Louisiana with its principal place of business in Morgan City,
Louisiana and is in the business of providing steel fabrication
services to offshore oil and gas marine industries. Plaintiff
worked for the Defendants as laborers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Telephone: (504) 534-5005
     Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
     Email: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
            costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
            whbeaumont@gmail.com

            - and -

     R. Brent Cueria, Esq.
     CUERIA LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
     700 Camp Street,
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Telephone: (504) 525-5211
     Email: rbcueria@aol.com


NEW ORLEANS: Court Wants "Yarls" Complaint Amended
--------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James J. Brady entered an order in the class action
lawsuit captioned YARLS, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. BUNTON, ET
AL., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00031-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.),
instructing the Plaintiffs to amend the complaint to fully allege
the scope of relief requested and add all necessary parties to
obtain such relief.

The Plaintiffs may file a properly supported motion for class
certification. After such motion is filed, and a class certified,
the plaintiffs may move for an order -- not a final judgment --
for declaratory relief.  The Court will then proceed with whatever
motions and/or hearings are necessary to determine the appropriate
relief and to enter a final judgment on all claims.

The case is referred to the magistrate judge for purposes of
entering a Scheduling Order consistent.

The Court further terminated Motion for Declaratory Judgment from
the Court's docket, reserving the Plaintiffs the right to refile
the motion following class certification.

The Plaintiffs are Douglas Brown, Leroy Shaw, Jr. and Darwin
Yarls, Jr.  The Defendants are Derwyn Bunton and James T Dixon,
Jr.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N6kVwIzM


NEW YORK: Bharara Mum on NYCHA Mold Remediation Case
----------------------------------------------------
Louis Flores, writing for Progress Queens, reports that the office
of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who has made it his business to
join or launch major litigation about gross misconduct by the City
of New York Government to effect reform, is silent about his
office's intentions regarding a class action mold remediation and
abatement case against the New York City Housing Authority, or
NYCHA.

The office of U.S. Attorney Bharara did not answer advance
questions submitted by Progress Queens asking, in part, whether
Federal prosecutors intended to join the class action mold lawsuit
against NYCHA.

Whenever civil litigation has uncovered a pattern of Government
misconduct, the U.S. Attorney's Office has interceded to effect
reform.  After the City of New York took too long to protect the
Constitutional rights of inmates at Rikers Island, particularly
for juvenile inmates, the U.S. Attorney's Office for New York's
southern district joined an existing civil lawsuit regarding the
treatment of Rikers Island inmates as an intervenor to effect a
Court-ordered settlement, incorporating recommendations made in a
report by a committee of Federal prosecutors appointed by U.S.
Attorney Bharara to investigate allegations of violations of
inmates' rights.

A possibility exists that Federal prosecutors may attempt the same
strategy, given that the same U.S. Attorney's Office has already
reportedly launched a Federal investigation into the physical
conditions standards at NYCHA regarding lead.  It would not be too
much to loop in mold under any Court-ordered settlement that the
Federal prosecutors may seek to enforce.

Controversy has already erupted over NYCHA's commitment to comply
with a Court-ordered settlement in which NYCHA stipulated that it
would remediate and eliminate mold in accordance with a Court-
approved timetable.  After NYCHA failed to comply with the Court-
ordered settlement, the Hon. U.S. District Court Judge William
Pauley in a Court order appointed a special master to oversee
NYCHA's compliance with the Court-ordered settlement.

As revealed in a report published by Progress Queens, it appears
that NYCHA has been inexplicably reporting fewer cases of
mold-related maintenance requests made by its tenants as it has
also been inexplicably reporting a spike in mildew-related
maintenance requests made by tenants.

The idea that mold is toxic has saturated the public
consciousness, but the same degree of concern does not
particularly exist with respect to mildew, even though both are
fungi that can have health effects.  It is not known how NYCHA
accounts for this shift in reporting.  NYCHA has rebuffed requests
made by Progress Queens to interview its chief executive, Shola
Olatoye.

The Federal investigation of NYCHA comes at a time when public
corruption, inept elected officials, or the ideology of a smaller
government have wreaked havoc on a functioning Government.
Consequently, Federal prosecutors with the office of U.S. Attorney
Bharara have served as a check on the workings of Government
agencies, often joining or initiating litigation that has sought
reform that has included the use of Court-appointed monitors to
ensure that the workings of Government complies with the law.

The Federal investigation of NYCHA also comes at a time when
Federal prosecutors from the same U.S. Attorney's Office are
reportedly probing whether Mayor Bill de Blasio has rewarded real
estate developers with official acts in exchange for having
received political or campaign support.  A possible overlap of the
investigation of NYCHA and of Mayor de Blasio's campaign finance
activities rests where the disposition of NYCHA's real property
may be being used to reward Mayor de Blasio's political or
campaign supporters.  According to information received by
Progress Queens, there is Federal law enforcement interest in how
NYCHA may be disposing of its real estate properties.

Despite the potential for conflicts of interest and the reported
Federal law enforcement interest into how NYCHA is disposing of
its real property, NYCHA continues to signal its intent to
contract with private developers to manage NYCHA properties, as
indicated in a report published by The New York Daily News.

In the absence of adequate Federal Government funding for public
housing, Mayor de Blasio has touted a turnaround plan for NYCHA
that has been revealed to have no financial basis in reality, as
noted in a separate report published by The New York Daily News.
Notwithstanding, that plan calls for the transfer of Government-
owned public housing stock that is managed by NYCHA on behalf of
the public into the Federal Government's Section 8 program of rent
subsidies.  Doing so would allow NYCHA to legally sell stakes in
public housing to private real estate developers.  The plan also
calls for the sale or lease of NYCHA's playgrounds, gardens, and
parking lots to real estate developers for the construction of
privately-owned affordable housing.

A sale of Section 8 buildings and a lease of green spaces each
involved politically-connected real estate developers.  Each
transaction did not subject the disposition of City real property
to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP process, as
required by the City Charter.  Furthermore, the process that
selected the politically-connected real estate developers has not
been made transparent by the de Blasio administration.

It is this incessant focus on entering into contracts with real
estate developers over the ownership, development, or management
of NYCHA properties that remains Mayor de Blasio's priority --
over any concern for addressing the physical condition standards
of the apartments lived in by NYCHA's tenants.

As reported by Progress Queens, the de Blasio administration may
be so emboldened to further enter into contracts over the
ownership, development, or management of NYCHA properties, because
a 1980's Federal investigation of municipal leases centered around
Koch administration official Alex Liberman left corruptly-
negotiated real estate contracts intact.


PEARLS GROUP: Indian Investors to Launch Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter McCutcheon, writing for ABC, reports that victims of a
massive pyramid fraud scheme in India were preparing to lodge a
class action in the Australian Federal Court on July 7.

Investors with the Pearls Group are asking the court to freeze
$100 million worth of prime Gold Coast real estate they claim was
bought with misappropriated funds.

"They're trophy properties that were bought by the operators of
the scheme in India -- the Sheraton Mirage Gold Coast and a $5
million luxury Gold Coast mansion at Sanctuary Cove,"
Alex Moriarty from Shine Lawyers said.

The case was set up by former ASIC investigator Niall Coburn, who
was made aware of the scandal by 7.30 back in February.

He travelled twice to India to offer to help investors chase
Pearls assets in Australia.

"It was clear to me that no one was going to do anything in this
kind of investigation -- it was all too hard," he said.

In May, he signed up tens of thousands of investors through a
local support group.

"At the moment we're representing more than 45,000 Indian
investors who collectively invested over $10 million,"
Mr. Moriarty said.

"But a class action can grow as more people join it."

Pearls signed up nearly 50 million people

For nearly two decades, Pearls offered high rates of return to
some of India's poorest.  Nearly 50 million people signed up.

But the schemes were highly controversial, with a history of run-
ins with regulators going back as far as 1998.

The Australian Government body Austrade introduced Pearls to Gold
Coast businessmen in 2009 as an approved investor.

The following year, a Pearls company, Pearls Infrastructure,
pumped $100 million into an Australian company that went on to
purchase the Sheraton Mirage for $62 million.

A long legal battle in India came to an end late last year, when
the country's Supreme Court found a Pearls investment scheme was a
sham, making highly misleading claims.

Four Indian Pearls directors were subsequently arrested for fraud.

A committee appointed by the Indian supreme court has already
begun the process of seizing assets there, in an attempt to claw
back some of the $10 billion owed to investors.

"We are really confident that the committee is fully seized on the
matter," Kochi-based advocate CP Chandrasekharan said.

The owner of the Sheraton Mirage is the Australian company
MiiGroup.  MiiGroup said its involvement with Pearls was approved
by both the Reserve Bank of India and Australia's Foreign
Investment Review Board.

The company argued the Australian action was unnecessary, as they
had already agreed to fully co-operate with authorities in India.

"It is a rogue, opportunist action," MiiGroup said in a statement.

7.30 understands MiiGroup is negotiating a sale of the Sheraton
Mirage, and the waterfront mansion owned by Pearls Infrastructure
has been on the market for the past six weeks.

Lawyers acting for Indian investors argued any sale would make
recovering the money difficult, so they had to act fast.

"It's not a rogue opportunist action," Mr. Moriarty said.

"We're acting directly for the people who have been defrauded,
many of these people have lost their life savings."


PERSOLVE LLC: Class Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, granted the parties' renewed joint motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement in the case SANDRA LEE
JACOBSON, Plaintiff, v. PERSOLVE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 14-CV-00735-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Sandra Lee Jacobson filed a case against Persolve, LLC, and Stride
Card, LLC, alleging that the debt collection letter received from
defendants did not comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. Jacobson contends that defendants' debt collection letter
violated the FDCPA by failing to disclose the name of the creditor
to whom the debt is owed, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(2).

The parties filed a second renewed joint motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement on April 14, 2016.

Judge Koh granted the parties' second renewed joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.  The class is
defined as all persons with addresses in California to whom
Persolve sent, or caused to be sent, a notice on behalf of Stride
Card in an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally owed to
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. which was incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes, which were not returned as
undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office during the period one year
prior to the date of filing this action through the date of class
certification.

The court appoints Sandra Lee Jacobson as the class
representative. Fred W. Schwinn and Raeon Roulston of Consumer Law
Center, Inc., and O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz, &
Associates, Ltd., will act as counsel for the class and appointed
and as class counsel. For purposes of preliminary approval, the
court approves ILYM Group Inc., to act as the settlement
administrator.

Subject to the court's revisions to the class notice and subject
to the parties' inclusion of phone numbers for Raeon Roulston and
ILYM, the court approves the form and method of notice set forth
in the agreement and finds that the form and method of notice set
forth in the agreement satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and due process, and constitutes
the best practicable procedure under the circumstances. Defendants
shall provide a class list, containing each class member's last
known address as reflected in defendants' records, to ILYM, and to
class counsel. Within 45 days following entry of the order, ILYM
shall send via first class U.S. mail the notice of settlement to
each person in the class list, at their most recent known address,
and will forward any notice that is returned with a forwarding
address within 14 days of receiving the returned mail and will
update the class member address list with all forwarding
addresses. At least 10 days before the final approval hearing, the
ILYM shall file a declaration of compliance with the notice
procedures set forth in the agreement.

Class counsel shall file a noticed motion for attorneys' fees and
costs together with all supporting documentation, to be heard at
the final approval hearing. The motion shall be filed by no later
than 30 days from entry of the order. The court preliminarily
approves the consideration of $10.66 to each member of the class
provided there are no opt-outs; if there are opt-outs, the amount
will be recalculated for a pro rata distribution as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

Any class member who desires to be excluded from the class must
send a written request for exclusion to ILYM, with a postmark date
no later than 105 days after the entry of the order. The claims
administrator shall provide a list of those persons requesting
exclusion to class counsel and to defendants' counsel after the
deadline for exclusions passes, but no later than 120 days after
the entry of the order. A copy of the list will be filed with the
motion for final approval of the class action settlement.

To be valid, a request for exclusion must be personally signed by
the member of the class requesting exclusion and must include
his/her name, address and telephone number and the following
statement: I request to be excluded from the class settlement in
Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 5:14-CV-00735, or words
to that effect.

Any class member who intends to object to the fairness of the
settlement must file a written objection with the clerk of the
United States District Court, for the Northern District of
California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, 95113 no
later than 105 days after the entry of the order. A class member
who has timely filed an objection may, but need not, appear at the
Settlement Hearing. Any class member who does not file a valid and
timely objection to the settlement shall be barred from seeking
review of the Settlement by appeal or otherwise. The costs of
notice and settlement administration will be paid by defendants.

The court shall conduct a final hearing on Thursday, December 1,
2016, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8 of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, located at 280
South First Street, San Jose, California, 95113.  At the final
approval hearing, the court will consider these issues:

     a. Whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the class
members and should be approved by the court;

     b. Whether the final judgment and order of dismissal with
prejudice, as provided under the agreement, should be entered,
dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice;

     c. Whether and the amount of attorneys' fees and costs that
should be awarded to class counsel;

     d. Whether and the amount of statutory damages and incentive
award that should be awarded to the class representative;

     e. Such other issues as the court deems appropriate.

A copy of Judge Koh's order dated June 7, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/C31xkufrom Leagle.com.

Sandra Lee Jacobson, Plaintiff, represented by:

Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Esq.
Consumer Law Center, Inc.
12 South First Street, Suite 1014
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408-294-6100
Facsimile: 408-294-6190

     - and -

O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates
25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-372-8822

Persolve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles Robert Messer --
messerc@cmtlaw.com -- David J. Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com
-- Stephen Albert Watkins -- WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- at Carlson and
Messer LLP

Stride Card, LLC, Defendant, represented by David J. Kaminski --
kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Stephen Albert Watkins --
WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- at Carlson and Messer LLP


PFIZER INC: Agrees to Disclose Addiction Risks in Opioid Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Keyser, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
city of Chicago and Pfizer announced an agreement on July 6
committing the drugmaker to disclosing the serious risks of
addiction in its marketing of prescription opioid painkillers.

Chicago is suing five pharmaceutical companies, alleging they have
misrepresented the benefits of opioids while concealing serious
health risks associated with the drugs.  Pfizer Inc. is not named
in that lawsuit, and the city said it found no evidence that the
company engaged in any misconduct in its marketing. Mayor Rahm
Emanuel's office said Pfizer has cooperated with the city's
investigation, providing documents and other evidence relevant to
Chicago's claims against other drugmakers.

Prescription opioid abuse is blamed for nearly 19,000 deaths a
year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.  The highly addictive class of narcotic
painkillers is used to treat common, chronic conditions such as
back pain and arthritis.

"This landmark agreement is a big step in the right direction to
help protect and educate the public about the true risks and
benefits of highly potent and highly addictive painkillers,"
Emanuel said in a written statement.  "The use of these drugs has
led to a dramatic rise in drug addiction, overdose and diversion
in communities across the nation, including in Chicago."

In a statement, Pfizer described the agreement as voluntary,
adding that it was "pleased to work with the City of Chicago to
help address the serious problem of prescription opioid abuse."

The agreement requires Pfizer to disclose that there is an
addiction risk even when opioids are used as directed. It also
must note that there are no adequate or well-controlled studies of
the use of these drugs for longer than 12 weeks.  Under the
agreement, Pfizer is barred from supporting any organization or
individual who makes inaccurate claims about the risks and
benefits of opioids.

Pfizer will also fund medical education programs for health care
providers prescribing opioids.

In its lawsuit, Chicago accuses five companies of aggressively
marketing the drugs as rarely addictive and touting benefits that
lack scientific support to boost their profits.  The suit claims
the companies have specifically targeted the elderly and veterans,
leading to "catastrophic results."

The five companies are Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma,
Actavis, Endo Health Solutions Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries. The drugmakers have asked a federal judge to dismiss
the suit, citing a lack of specific instances of fraud in the
city's complaint.

Mayor Emanuel said the companies should be "held accountable for
their deceptive actions that cause serious damage to individuals,
families and neighborhoods."


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Class Action Lawsuits Pending in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend against class action lawsuits in Texas.

Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas
Division against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and
Charles H. Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The
lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action
captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1
Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner,
Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1
Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 and September 24, 2015.
The plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be
predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit
is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously.


PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Appeals Ruling in "Rodriguez" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Providence Community Corrections, now known as
Providence Service Corporation, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Cindy Rodriguez, et al. v. Providence
Community Corrections, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01048, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.

The appellate case is captioned as Cindy Rodriguez, et al. v.
Providence Community Corrections, et al., Case No. 16-6127, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Chief federal
Judge Kevin H. Sharp has issued an injunction stopping a private
probation company in Rutherford County from jailing two men
because they cannot pay court fines and fees.  Judge Sharp's order
also says Providence Community Corrections and Rutherford County
officials cannot arrest Fred Robinson and Steven Gibbs for any
other kind of violation and also hold them on bond, which would
require them to pay money before release.

Messrs. Robinson and Gibbs are two of seven people on probation in
Rutherford County who filed a class action lawsuit on Oct. 1.  The
lawsuit says Providence and Rutherford County officials conspired
to overcharge people on probation and withhold payments that
should have gone to pay for court fines and fees.  The lawsuit
says that practice left probationers in a cycle of debt that often
resulted in extended probation terms and additional arrests.

Providence contracts with Rutherford County to supervise people on
probation for misdemeanor and traffic cases.  The company charges
an additional $45 to individuals per month of supervision and $20
per drug test, the lawsuit says.

The other Defendants are Rutherford County, Tennessee, Jasmine
Jackson, Briana Woodlee, Amanda Roberts, Tiara Smith, Kelly Haley,
Amanda Schexnayder, Kayla Banks, Kelly Mccall and Nisha Hyde.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Alec George Karakatsanis, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 681-2409
          E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

Defendant-Appellant Providence Community Corrections is
represented by:

          Manuel A. Abascal, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          E-mail: Emanny.abascal@lw.com


QUALITY EGG: Appeals Court Upholds Executives' Jail Sentences
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan K. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
father and son whose Iowa-based egg production company caused a
massive 2010 salmonella outbreak can be required to serve jail
time for misdemeanor food safety violations, a divided appeals
court ruled on July 6.

In a 2-1 decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
three-month jail sentences issued last year to 82-year-old Austin
"Jack" DeCoster and his son Peter DeCoster, 53.

The DeCosters were aware of unsanitary conditions at their
sprawling Iowa egg farms but failed to improve them before the
outbreak, which sickened up to 56,000 people and left some with
permanent injuries, Judge Diana Murphy wrote.

"We conclude that the record here shows that the DeCosters are
liable for negligently failing to prevent the salmonella
outbreak," Murphy wrote, joined by Judge Raymond Gruender.

The case, a rare prosecution against those responsible for an
outbreak of foodborne illness, was closely watched by advocates
for consumer safety and food and drug manufacturers.

The Justice Department praised the ruling, saying the DeCosters
disregarded basic food safety standards for years and deserved
jail time.

Attorneys for the DeCosters didn't return messages seeking
comment.

At issue was whether corporate executives could face imprisonment
for violating the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which
allows "responsible corporate agents" to be held criminally liable
even if they were not aware of the wrongdoing.

The DeCosters, who owned and operated Quality Egg LLC, had pleaded
guilty to violating the law by introducing adulterated eggs into
interstate commerce.  They said they did not know the eggs were
contaminated but acknowledged they were in a position to stop the
problems had they known.

U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett ordered the jail time in April
2015, saying they knew or should have known about the risks posed
by the presence of salmonella in and around millions of
egg-laying hens.  But he allowed the DeCosters to stay free while
they appealed the sentences, which they argued were
unconstitutional and unreasonably harsh.

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
National Association of Manufacturers, filed friend-of-the-court
briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal.  They argued that it would
be unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations
that they were unaware of or that were committed by subordinates.

Murphy rejected those arguments, saying Congress did not require
executives to have known about the violations to be subject to the
food safety law's criminal penalties.  She said the jail terms
were relatively short, within federal guidelines and "not grossly
disproportionate to the gravity of their misdemeanor offenses."

Gruender added in a concurring opinion that the DeCosters were not
being punished for the acts of others, saying their own failure to
take steps to prevent the outbreak was to blame.

Dissenting Judge C. Arlen Beam said prosecutors failed to show
that the DeCosters had criminal intent, and therefore "there is no
precedent" for sending them to jail.  He said they were not aware
the products were tainted with salmonella and that they
immediately recalled hundreds of millions of eggs once the
outbreak was confirmed "at great expense."

"This is hardly the stuff of 'guilty minds'," he wrote.

Quality Egg paid a $6.8 million fine after pleading guilty to
felony charges of shipping eggs with false processing and
expiration dates and bribing a U.S. Department of Agriculture
inspector to approve sales of poor-quality eggs.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC on July 6 disclosed that it filed a class
action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of
lead plaintiff and New York County resident, Maria Vecchio, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against Quest Diagnostics
Inc., ExamOne World Wide Inc., and ExamOne LLC.  The firm is also
seeking to represent other current and former Mobile Examiners who
worked for Quest and affiliated Quest entities across the country.
The lawsuit alleges the following violations:

   -- not paying overtime wages;
   -- not paying New York and federal minimum wage;
   -- not providing employees proper wage statements (pay stubs);
      and
   -- not reimbursing business expenses.

Ms. Vecchio and her attorneys believe that Quest and its
subsidiaries have violated the above state and federal labor laws.
She is possibly one of thousands of New York and national
employees who work or worked for Quest as Mobile Examiners and
were not paid in accordance with federal and state law.  This
action is presented as an opt-in collective action on behalf of
herself and all similarly affected individuals for violations of
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as a class action
for Quest's violations of state labor law.

If you worked for Quest as a Mobile Examiner within the past 6
years, and you believe your rights were violated as described
above or in any other way, we encourage you to please call us at
(212) 397-1000.

                         About the firm

Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is a national litigation firm providing
representation to plaintiffs in class actions and complex
commercial litigation, as well as victims of environmental
contamination disasters, aviation accidents, defective
prescriptions drugs and medical devices, asbestos-related
illnesses, and other serious personal injury matters.  With their
principal offices in New York City and additional offices in
California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Texas, and affiliates through the United States, Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC is readily available to clients.


RITE AID: 10 Stockholder Class Actions Pending
----------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Company was aware of
10 putative class action lawsuits as of May 28, 2016, that were
filed by purported Company stockholders, against the Company, its
directors (the Individual Defendants, together with the Company,
the Rite Aid Defendants), Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. ("WBA")
and Victoria Merger Sub Inc., (Victoria) challenging the
transactions contemplated by the Merger agreement between the
Company and WBA.

Eight (8) of these actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware (Smukler v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Hirschler v. Standley, et al., Catelli v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Orr v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., DePietro v. Standley, et al., Abadi
v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Mortman v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). One
(1) action was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Sachs
Investment Grp., et al. v. Standley, et al.).

The complaints in these nine (9) actions alleged primarily that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate
price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly
prevented the directors from obtaining higher offers from other
interested buyers for the Company and allegedly failing to protect
against certain purported conflicts of interest in connection with
the Merger. The Complaints further allege that the Company, WBA
and/or Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, to
enjoin the closing of the Merger as well as money damages and
attorneys' and experts' fees.


RITE AID: Delaware Consolidated Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Court has entered a
stipulated order regarding notice of payment and final dismissal
of a consolidated class action in Delaware.

On December 23, 2015, the eight (8) Delaware actions were
consolidated in an action captioned In re Rite Aid Corporation
Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11663-CB (the
Consolidated Action). In addition to the claims asserted in the
nine (9) complaints, the operative pleading in the Consolidated
Action also included allegations that the preliminary proxy
statement contained material omissions, including with respect to
the process that resulted in the Merger agreement and the fairness
opinion rendered by the Company's banker.

On December 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
filed a motion for expedited proceedings, which the Court orally
denied at a hearing held on January 5, 2016.

On March 11, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiffs' notice and
proposed order voluntarily dismissing the Consolidated Action as
moot, while retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On April 15, 2016, the Company reached a settlement in principle
related to this matter for an immaterial amount and on May 11,
2016, the Court entered a stipulated order regarding notice of
payment thereof and final dismissal of this matter.


RITE AID: M.D. Pa. Court Stayed "Herring" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Pennsylvania
District Court has granted class action plaintiffs' unopposed
motion to stay the Herring action.

A tenth action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania District
Court), asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants and a claim
for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants and WBA (Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.).
The Herring complaint alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid
and its Board of Directors disseminated an allegedly false and
materially misleading proxy. The complaint sought to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the
proxy was materially false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws, and an award of money damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees.

On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the plaintiff in the
Herring action filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a
motion for expedited discovery. On January 21, 2016, the Rite Aid
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Herring complaint. At a
hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court
orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and
subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction on January 28, 2016.

On March 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry
Herring, Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead
plaintiffs for the putative class and approved their selection of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel.

On April 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the Herring action for all
purposes pending consummation of the Merger.


RITE AID: Discovery Ongoing in Indergit Class Action in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
the Indergit class action lawsuit.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al. pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to
pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and
under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks
other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state
and federal claims for overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice
of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On
September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification
of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but
denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion for
decertification of the nationwide collective action claims.

The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014.
The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied
in September 2014.

Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only has
been sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers
in the state of New York. Discovery related to the merits of the
claims is ongoing.

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.


RITE AID: Defending California Wage and Hour Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Company is currently
a defendant in several lawsuits filed in state courts in
California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws,
rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods,
failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide
employee seating (the "California Cases"). The lawsuits pertaining
to failure to reimburse business expenses and provide employee
seating purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages.
The single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff lawsuits regarding
failure to pay overtime and failure to pay for missed meals and
rest periods, in the aggregate, seek substantial damages. The
Company has aggressively challenged the merits of the lawsuits
and, where applicable, the allegations that the cases should be
certified as class or representative actions.


RITE AID: Settlement Funds Disbursed in Chase and Scherwin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that with respect to cases
involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase and Scherwin v.
Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court
and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Sacramento County
Superior Court), during the period ended March 1, 2014, the
Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to these matters.
The Company settled the lawsuit for $9.0 million. Following final
approval by the Court earlier in the year, all settlement funds
were disbursed in March 2016.


RITE AID: September 16 Status Conference in "Hall" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that a further status
conference in the Hall case is scheduled for September 16, 2016.

In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San
Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed
its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in
November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order
which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition
for review of the appellate court's decision with the California
Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014.
Proceedings in the Hall case are stayed pending a decision by the
California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision was
rendered on April 4, 2016. The Company is conferring with counsel
about next steps in the litigation. A further status conference in
the case is scheduled for September 16, 2016. With respect to the
California Cases (other than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), the
Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome
of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to said lawsuits.


ROINS PRODUCE: "Solano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Joel Solano, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Roins Produce, Inc., and John
Tsekos, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07005 (N.D.
Ill., July 6, 2016), seeks overtime wages, statutory damages,
reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

Roins Produce is a wholesaler of fruits and vegetables owned by
John Tsekos, operating in the Chicago area, where Plaintiff's job
duties included picking, verifying orders, and unloading. Solano
claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Office: 312-800-1017
      Email: ralicea@yourclg.com


SALSA AND BEER: "Velasquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Moises Velasquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Salsa and Beer Restaurant, Inc., Noe
Patino, Patricia Patino, Dionisio Patino and Ismael Patino,
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00655 (E.D. N.C., July 6, 2016),
seeks unpaid straight time compensation, overtime premiums for all
overtime work required, liquidated damages and/or other damages as
permitted by applicable law and attorney's fees, costs and
expenses incurred in this action for direct violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a waiter at Salsa and Beer
Inc. Restaurant in Spring Lake, NC.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ PLLC
      1020 Southhill Dr. Suite 130
      Cary, NC 27513
      Tel: (919) 741-8693
      Fax: (919) 869-1853
      Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Noonan" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. The case is captioned Kyle Noonan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05271 (S.D.N.Y., July 1,
2016).

Samsung Electronics supplies consumer electronics and digital
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SCHMIDT BAKING: "Schilling" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Ronald J. Schilling, Jr., Russell E. Dolan, Jonathan A. Hecker,
Plaintiffs, v. Schmidt Baking Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-02498 (D.M.D., July 6, 2016), seeks  to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney fees and
costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Schmidt Baking Company is in the business of producing and
delivering bread products, operating a regional network of
bakeries and depots, and providing baked goods to various
establishments. This includes restaurants, grocery stores, various
small businesses, schools, prisons and warehouses located in
Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. Plaintiffs worked for
Schmidt as District Sales Managers. They claimed to be denied
compensation for times that they filled in for unserved
deliveries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     Joseph E. Spicer, Esq. (27839)
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone No.: (410) 244-7005
     Fax No.: (410) 244-8454
     Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
            jspicer@nicholllaw.com


SEATTLE SERVICE: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Thornell" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Thornell filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled SANDRA THORNELL, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SEATTLE SERV. BUREAU, INC., DBA National
Serv. Bureau, Inc.; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:14-cv-01601-MJP, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

The appellate case is captioned as Sandra Thornell v. Seattle
Serv. Bureau, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-35569, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Thornell,
a Texas resident, told the Court that she received allegedly
deceptive debt collection letters from Defendant Seattle Service
Bureau (SSB), pursuant to the referral of unliquidated subrogation
claims to SSB by State Farm.  She argued these letters constitute
Consumer Protection Act violations by both SSB and State Farm.
She alleged she incurred damages by signing up for a credit
monitoring service and retaining counsel.

The District Court denied a motion to dismiss in other respects
relating to the WCPA claim, but did not reach a decision with
respect to the extraterritorial application of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act against Washington and Illinois
defendants.


SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Sexually Explicit Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that Snapchat Inc., the
developer of the popular image messaging app, was hit on July 7
with a nationwide class action alleging that the company targets
minors with sexually explicit content.

The suit was brought by star-studded Los Angeles law firm Geragos
& Geragos and alleges that Venice-based Snapchat is violating the
federal Communications Decency Act and California state law.  It
could expose the company to millions of dollars in damages.

The complaint focuses on "Snapchat Discover," a feature the
company introduced in early 2015 to bring content from media
affiliates to its roughly 150 million users.

In contrast to the disappearing, user-to-user images and videos
that gave Snapchat a reputation as a "sexting" platform, Discover
serves up to users both images and articles from media partners.
These can then be shared, or "snapped," between users, the
complaint says.

It alleges that much of the content is unfit for minors, and is
sometimes sexually explicit.  For example, the complaint describes
an article that combines sexually explicit text with screenshots
from Disney cartoons headlined: "23 Pictures That are Too Real If
You've Ever had Sex with a Penis."

"Snapchat is currently engaged in an insidious pattern and
practice of intentionally exposing minors to harmful, offensive,
prurient, and sexually offensive content, without warning minors
or their parents that they would be exposed to such explicit
content," the complaint says.

The suit was filed on behalf of a 14-year-old Los Angeles boy
identified as John Doe and his mother, Lynette Young.  It argues
that the Communications Decency Act requires that services like
Snapchat provide notice of the availability of parental controls,
and that Snapchat fails to warn users about the content of
Snapchat Discover.

The law provides for civil damages of $50,000 per violation, with
each day constituting a separate violation.  Ben Meiselas, an
attorney with Geragos & Geragos, declined to give a specific
estimate of how much the damages could total up to be but said
they would be "substantial" given the service's huge number of
users.

"We think the best metric for determining the value of Snapchat
failing to keep children safe, on such a mass scale, is best left
to a jury," Mr. Meiselas said.

Noah Edwardsen, a spokesman for Snapchat, tried to deflect the
criticisms leveled against the company.  "We haven't been served
with a complaint in this lawsuit, but we are sorry if people were
offended," he said in an email.  "Our Discover partners have
editorial independence, which is something that we support."

Geragos & Geragos is perhaps best known for representing
celebrities like Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder, but also has a
history of involvement in major class actions, including several
against online real estate giant Zillow.

In addition to damages, the new suit asks the court to require
Snapchat to warn users about "offensive and adult content" on
Snapchat Discover, and to empower parents and guardians with the
ability to filter or block content that will be seen by minors.


SOUTH CAROLINA: To Notify Inmates of Mental Health Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Monk, writing for The State, reports that over the next five
weeks, officials at the S.C. Department of Corrections will
conduct a massive outreach to make sure all inmates in the state
prison system are notified of a pending landmark proposed
settlement in a lawsuit over how mentally ill inmates are treated.

The outreach in the longstanding, class action lawsuit was
approved by state Judge Robert Hood at a July 5 hearing at the
Richland County courthouse.  Judge Hood gave lawyers until
Aug. 19 to report back to him.

Of the approximately 20,000 inmates in South Carolina's 22
institutions, approximately 3,500 are estimated to have mental
illnesses that will qualify for the state prison system's new and
sharply upgraded mental health care program.

The schedule to notify inmates was jointly agreed to by S.C.
corrections director Bryan Stirling as well as Stuart Andrews and
Dan Westbrook, lawyers for the disabled rights group Protection
and Advocacy for People with Disabilities.  Eleven years ago, that
group sued the department, seeking better treatment for mentally
ill prisoners.

Under the rules of class action lawsuits, members of the class can
review the proposed settlement and make comments. Arrangements
have been made to notify even inmates in solitary confinement as
well as to read the agreement to inmates who cannot read.

"We want members of the class to review this in detail, and this
(notification) will allow them that chance," Mr. Andrews said
following the hearing.

If inmates raise no major concerns, lawyers will ask Judge Hood on
Aug. 19 to issue an order giving final approval to the proposed
settlement.

Under the proposed settlement, announced in June, the department
has agreed to $1.7 million for facilities upgrades plus another $7
million annually to add some 70 workers over three years.  The
settlement also includes plans for an independent monitor and
increased training for corrections staff who deal with mentally
ill inmates. The department has four years to implement the
changes.

"It's a good day for everybody.  Settlement is always a good
resolution for a lawsuit," said Mr. Stirling after the hearing. He
was accompanied by Roy Laney, a Columbia attorney.

"This is a good resolution for folks to get the help they need,"
Mr. Stirling said.  Mentally ill inmates who have been diagnosed
and getting the right treatment, including therapy and medication,
will be less likely like to return to prison, he said.

"Hopefully, they will get the help they need and go on and lead
stable and productive lives."


SPREADS PARK: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spreads Park South
Corp. The case is captioned Oscar Martinez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Spreads
Park South Corp., doing business as Spreads, and Michael Ezekiel,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05221 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2016).

Spreads Park is in the miscellaneous retail stores business.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


STAAR SURGICAL: Law Firm Investigates Possible Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP, is
investigating potential violations of the federal and state
securities laws by STAAR Surgical Company (STAA) and certain of
its officers and board members.  STAAR designs, develops,
manufactures and sells implantable lenses for the eye and delivery
systems to deliver the lenses into the eye.

Specifically, a court issued a tentative ruling denying a motion
to dismiss for a class action suit filed against STAAR.  The class
action alleges that misleading statements were made relating to
FDA regulatory violations at STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing
facility.  The FDA cited several regulatory violations at the
facility and stated that, among other things, "the methods used
in, or the facilities or controls used for" manufacture, packing,
storage or installations of STAAR's implantable lenses are "not in
conformity with the current good manufacturing practice
requirements."

If you are a long term shareholder, continuously holding shares
before February 2013, you may have standing to hold STAAR harmless
from the damage the officers and directors caused by making them
personally responsible.  You may also be able to assist in
reforming the Company's corporate governance.

If you are a long term shareholder of STAAR and wish to discuss
your rights, please contact Jim Baker --jimb@johnsonandweaver.com
-- by email or by phone at 619-814-4471.

                  About Johnson & Weaver, LLP

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


STANDARD MORTGAGE: Judge Dismissed RICO Claims in "Robinson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case JORDELLA
ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED BORROWERS, v. STANDARD MORTGAGE CORPORATION and
STANDARD MORTGAGE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., SECTION: R, Civil Action
No. 15-4123 (E.D. La.)

On September 3, 2015, Jordella Robinson filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Standard Mortgage Corporation and Standard
Mortgage Insurance Agency, Inc. (SM Insurance), alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) (Count One); conspiracy to
violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (Count Two); breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Three); and
unjust enrichment (Counts Four and Five). Robinson asserts her
civil RICO and RICO conspiracy claims individually and on behalf
of a proposed nationwide class of all persons who have or had a
mortgage loan or line of credit owned, originated or serviced by
Standard Mortgage and/or its affiliates secured by property
located in the United States and, in connection therewith, were
charged for force-placed insurance on the secured property within
the applicable statute of limitations. Robinson proposes a sub-
class for her state law claims comprised of similar property
owners in Louisiana.

As to her civil RICO claim, Robinson alleges an association-in-
fact enterprise comprised of Standard Mortgage, SM Insurance, and
their affiliates. Robinson alleges that the enterprise engaged in
a pattern of racketeering, marked by three predicate acts. First,
defendants committed mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1341 and 1343. In furtherance of a scheme to defraud
borrowers, defendants allegedly sent false and misleading notices
to Robinson and putative class members by means of mail and wire
communication. Second, defendants engaged in honest-services
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1346. Third, defendants
extorted or conspired to extort borrowers in violation of the
Hobbs Act, 18 US.C. Section 1951 (a). Specifically, defendants
allegedly used and attempted and conspired to use, the actual or
threatened fear of default and foreclosure to induce borrowers to
pay kickbacks and fees in excess of the costs of insuring their
properties.

Standard Mortgage and SM Insurance move to dismiss Robinson's
civil RICO claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
asserting several arguments for dismissal. Specifically,
defendants argue that Robinson fails to plausibly allege the
existence of an enterprise that is distinct from Standard Mortgage
and SM Insurance, the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, or an
injury proximately caused by a RICO violation. In addition,
defendants argue that Robinson fails to state a RICO conspiracy
claim because she has not adequately pleaded an underlying,
substantive RICO violation.

Judge Vance granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's RICO
claims.

A copy of Judge Vance's order and reason dated June 7, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/yyHOUKfrom Leagle.com.

Jordella Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Susanne W. Jernigan
at Jernigan Law Firm; Raymond Nicholas Barto --
raymond@sfclasslaw.com -- Stephen John Fearon, Jr. --
stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- Thomas G. O'Brien --
thomas@sfclasslaw.com -- at Squitieri & Fearon, LLP; Ronald
Lawrence Wilson at Law Office of Ron Wilson
Defendants, represented by John Anthony Dunlap --
dunlap@carverdarden.com -- Frank A. Tessier --
tessier@carverdarden.com -- Haley E. Nix -- nix@carverdarden.com
-- Russell L. Foster -- foster@carverdarden.com -- at Carver,
Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux


STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: "Stone" Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Stone, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07351, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Cleveland). The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01703-CAB to the proceeding. The
assigned Judge is Hon. Christopher A. Boyko.

Sterling Infosystems, doing business as SterlingBackcheck,
provides background checks and employment screening services to
clients in various industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          21550 Oxnard Street Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883 4900
          Facsimile: (818) 882 4902

               - and -

          Jeff Holmes, Esq.
          HOLMES LAW GROUP APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599 8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402 3949

               - and -

          Lonnie C Blanchard, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599 8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402 3949

The Defendant is represented by:

          Geoffrey S. Harper, Esq.
          Thomas B. Walsh IV, Esq.
          Michael Richard Headley, Esq.
          FISH & RICHARDSON-DALLAS
          1717 Main Street, Ste. 500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 747 5070
          Facsimile: (214) 747 2091
          E-mail: harper@fr.com
                  walsh@fr.com

               - and -

          Michael Brett Johnson, Esq.
          FISH AND RICHARDSON PC
          1717 Main Street Suite 5000
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 747 5070
          Facsimile: (214) 747 2091


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Waitresses Win Class Action Over Pay Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Monk, writing for The State, reports that two waitresses have
won a $700,000 class action lawsuit against Texas Roadhouse
franchises, including one in Columbia, alleging the company used
unfair pay practices to compensate its servers.

In denying Texas Roadhouse's bid to keep the payout under seal,
U.S. Judge Terry Wooten said "the public's right to access the
settlement agreement" was not outweighed by the company's desire
for secrecy.

The settlement resulted from a 2015 in federal court against the
restaurant owners filed by Rachel Bontempi and Tiffany Tatham,
servers at the Texas Roadhouse restaurant on Columbiana Drive in
Columbia.

Texas Roadhouse is known for its American cuisine with an emphasis
on steaks.  It has containers of peanuts at every table and bills
itself as having "Legendary Food, Legendary Service -- all with
lots of Legendary Fun."

According to their lawsuit, both Bontempi and Tatham alleged they
and other tipped employees were required by the restaurant to pay
a portion of their gross sales into a tip pool from which
employees who would not normally receive tips were paid.  This had
the effect of diluting the amount of money servers were supposed
to be paid, their lawsuit said.

The requirement that Bontempi and Tatham, who each made $2.13
per hour, share their tips with "back-of-the-house kitchen staff,"
violated provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the
lawsuit said.

Bontempi and Tatham won't get all the $700,000.  Since it is a
class action lawsuit, the eligible servers are those who worked as
tipped employees for about a 12-month specified period at
franchise restaurants in Columbia and Anderson.

The eligible workers, whose payout will be calculated based on a
formula set out in the settlement, will be notified in coming
weeks.

As part of the settlement, Texas Roadhouse denied any wrongdoing,
saying its corporate entities "agreed to settle this case to avoid
the expense, inconvenience and distraction of further litigation."

Lawyers for Bontempi and Tatham declined comment on July 5.  They
are Todd Ellis, of Irmo, and Jim Griffin and Badge Humphries of
Columbia.  Their fees and expenses in the case come to about
$220,000, according to legal records.

Charleston lawyers Carol Ervin and Jennifer Dunlap, who
represented Texas Roadhouse, could not be reached for comment.

The Texas Roadhouse chain operates 368 corporate-owned restaurants
and 79 franchise-owned restaurants around the country. T he
payouts are the responsibility of the Texas Roadhouse franchises
that operate the restaurants in Columbia and Anderson.

Texas Roadhouse corporate headquarters in Louisville, Ky.,
released this statement: "This case, which involved two of our
franchise locations in South Carolina, has been resolved. Texas
Roadhouse Inc., which was dismissed from the case, denied the
allegations."


THERANOS: Faces Congressional Probe Over Faulty Blood Tests
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Buhr, writing for TechCrunch, reports that the U.S. House of
Representatives recently sent a letter to troubled blood analysis
startup Theranos asking for an explanation of the company's
failure to offer accurate results to patients using its
proprietary blood test technology.

Theranos developed a technique using its proprietary "Edison"
machine it claimed could detect hundreds of diseases using just
one drop of blood.  However, government and regulatory agencies
have questioned those results and the company now faces an
onslaught of class-action lawsuits from patients.

The company has also suffered a dramatic plummet in valuation, had
to void two years worth of blood test results, founder Elizabeth
Holmes was threatened with a possible ousting from her own company
and a potential barring from the industry, as well as faces a
potential criminal investigation, and Theranos main partner
Walgreens recently pulled out.

House Democrats Frank Pallone, Gene Green and Diana DeGette sent
the letter, dated June 30, asking founder Elizabeth Holmes to
explain what went wrong, what steps her company is taking to help
medical professionals and patients who might have been affected by
the results and how Theranos plans to comply with regulators.

"Given Theranos' disregard for patient safety and its failure to
immediately address concerns by federal regulators, we write to
request more information about how company policies permitted
systemic violations of federal law," reads the letter.

Theranos says it looks forward to clearing things up for these
lawmakers.  "Patient safety and clinical quality are our top
priorities," Theranos said in a statement.  It also said it was,
"committed to the highest standards of excellence across all our
labs."

"Patient safety and clinical quality are our top priorities,"
Theranos said in a statement.  It also said it was, "committed to
the highest standards of excellence across all our labs."

Theranos has continued to say it plans to reveal information about
its technology.  And Ms. Holmes is scheduled to speak at the
American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) conference on
August 1st.  However, House Democrats are asking for a response
from Theranos by July 14.


TREASURY WINE: Court Stays Second Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Holloway, Esq. -- peter.holloway@hsf.com -- of Herbert Smith
Freehills LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on July 5,
2016 Foster J of the Federal Court ordered that a second
shareholder class action commenced by Melbourne City Investments
Pty Ltd (MCI) against Treasury Wine Estates Limited (TWE) be
permanently stayed as an abuse of process of the Court.1

This decision follows an earlier decision by the Victorian Court
of Appeal on December 22, 20142 to stay another shareholder class
action commenced by MCI against TWE in November 2013, on the basis
of that proceeding being an abuse of process.  The majority Court
of Appeal decision (Maxwell P and Nettle JA, with Kyrou JA
dissenting) was based on findings made by the first instance Judge
(Ferguson J) that the reason for MCI's existence was to launch
proceedings to enable its sole shareholder and director, Mr.
Elliott, to earn legal fees from acting as the solicitor for MCI
in legal proceedings, including the claim against TWE.

Ferguson J had concluded that on its incorporation MCI purchased
small parcels of shares in 20 publicly listed companies, and later
purchased similarly small parcels of shares in another 147
publicly listed companies, including TWE, and subsequently
commenced 3 group proceedings with Mr Elliott acting as its
solicitor.  The judge also found that as the quantum of any
damages likely to be recovered by MCI in its claim against TWE was
at best less than $700, it was unlikely that the proceedings were
commenced for the purpose of recovering compensation.

Despite these findings, Ferguson J did not rule that the initial
proceeding against TWE was an abuse of process.

TWE applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the
decision of Ferguson J not to stay the first MCI proceeding as an
abuse of process.  None of the findings of fact made by the Judge
at first instance were challenged by MCI in the appeal.  On
December 22, 2014, the Court of Appeal allowed TWE's appeal and
held that the first MCI proceeding should be permanently stayed on
the ground that it constituted an abuse of process.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found that MCI was using the
cause of action to create an income-generating vehicle for its
solicitor, TWE having no interest in vindicating its rights or in
obtaining a remedy.  The majority found that the sole purpose of
MCI had only ever been to create for itself a cause of action of
sufficient merit to induce TWE to pay Mr. Elliott's fees and that
this constituted a clear example of an abuse of process --
commenting that the processes of the Court do not exist, and are
not to be used, merely to enable income to be generated for
solicitors, but rather they exist to enable legal rights and
immunities to be asserted and defended.

Within hours of the decision of the Court of Appeal, MCI filed and
served a fresh Supreme Court Writ and Statement of Claim against
TWE, making allegations essentially the same as those made in the
first (stayed) proceeding, but with MCI being represented by a
different law firm.

MCI also sought special leave to appeal the decision of the Court
of Appeal, but special leave was refused in May 2015.

The second MCI proceeding against TWE was transferred to the
Federal Court, where another shareholder class action against TWE
(an IMF-funded claim prosecuted by Maurice Blackburn on behalf of
the lead applicant) was pending.

In the Federal Court, TWE challenged the second MCI proceeding,
alleging that MCI was estopped from bringing a second proceeding
by reason of the determinations made by the Court of Appeal in the
first proceeding, and, moreover, that the second MCI proceeding
ought be stayed as an abuse of process because it too had not been
brought for the proper predominant purpose of vindicating MCI's
legal rights, but for an improper purpose of
Mr. Elliott receiving some financial benefit in or resulting from
the proceeding in the event that MCI was ultimately to be
successful.

Mr. Elliott did not lead evidence in the Federal Court challenge
about the purpose of MCI commencing either the original or the
second proceeding against TWE. TWE argued that this led to a Jones
v Dunkel inference against MCI.

In reaching his decision delivered on 5 July 2016, Justice Foster
found that:

a. Mr Elliott's purpose in causing MCI to bring the proceeding
could be attributed to MCI as its purpose for bringing the
proceeding, because Mr. Elliott was the sole director and sole
shareholder of MCI and because there was no evidence to suggest
that any other person had any say in the affairs of MCI;

b. in the circumstances, it was incumbent upon Mr. Elliott to
proffer an explanation for MCI's conduct in evidence given to the
Court, in particular to explain his purpose in bringing the
proceeding, and that his failure to do so provided a basis for the
Courts to draw adverse inferences against MCI;

c. Mr. Elliott did not cause MCI to make purchases of small
parcels of shares in more than 150 listed corporations because he
was interested in investing in each of the corporations either as
a long term investor or as a trader, but created MCI as a vehicle
for bringing class actions against listed corporations alleging,
amongst other things, breaches of continuous disclosure
obligations by those corporations;

d. Mr. Elliott caused MCI to make the share purchases in order to
enable MCI to position itself to commence a class action as the
lead plaintiff against any one or more of the corporations in
which the shares were purchased and, to the extent possible, to
enable Mr. Elliott himself to earn legal fees from the exercise;

e. given the reasons as found for MCI's purchases of shares, it
was very difficult if not impossible for Mr. Elliott to contend in
the claim against TWE that MCI actually relied upon the various
positive statements made by TWE to the ASX said to constitute
contraventions of the Corporations Act or that MCI actually relied
upon the integrity of the share market;

f. furthermore, it would be very difficult for MCI to persuade the
Court at a final hearing that, in the circumstances as found, it
should be able to rely upon market-based causation theory to
establish an indirect basis for reliance by it on the alleged
contraventions committed by TWE;

g. Mr. Elliott and MCI almost certainly did not rely upon anything
TWE said or failed to say or do when MCI purchased the shares in
TWE in November 2012; and

h. the insignificant amount sought to be recovered by MCI in the
proceeding did not, on any rational basis, justify the
commencement and maintenance of the proceeding.

Ultimately, the Judge said that the Court should not permit MCI to
institute and maintain the class action when, as the Court had
found, it was doing so not in order to obtain a remedy which the
law provided either for itself as an individual claimant or for
the members of the class which it purported to represent.  The
Judge said that MCI plainly did not have the capacity to fund a
proceeding itself and had not attempted to satisfy the Court that
it had put in place litigation funding which would cover its own
costs and the amount of any adverse costs order.  He also said
that MCI's claims were, at best, very weak if not hopeless, and
observed that the proceeding had been commenced with the intention
of using it as a 'fall back' or 'failsafe' against the possibility
that the first MCI proceeding would remain permanently stayed as
an abuse of process.

These matters were said by the Judge to demonstrate that the
proceeding had been brought for an illegitimate and collateral
purpose and that it constituted an abuse of process and should be
permanently stayed.  The Judge also said that it was oppressive
and vexatious to TWE and, if it was allowed to continue, would
bring the administration of justice into disrepute.


UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid "Reporting Pay"
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed on July 1, 2016 alleges United Parcel
Service, Inc. ("UPS") cheated employees out of their rightful
wages by failing to pay "Reporting Pay," as required by
Massachusetts law.

Massachusetts, like many other states, requires employers to pay
employees who show up for their scheduled shift, but are sent home
due to a lack of work.  This "Reporting Pay" law -- as it is known
-- requires employers in Massachusetts to pay an employee for at
least three hours of work, at the minimum wage, for every shift
cancelled or shortened after an employee's arrival at the job
site.

Cort Szafarz, the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, worked as a
part-time package handler at UPS from September 2014 to May 2015
in their Chelmsford, Massachusetts facility.  He was scheduled to
work Monday through Friday from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.  Although
he planned to work for the full shift every weekday, and showed up
at the Chelmsford facility every weekday ready to do so, his shift
was often cancelled or shortened due to a lack of work.  On such
days, Mr. Szafarz and others were not paid for at least three
hours of work.  When Mr. Szafarz complained to Human Resources, he
was told, "That's just the way we do it here."

Mr. Szafarz seeks to represent a class of other UPS hourly
employees in Massachusetts who, like him, were not paid
appropriately when their shifts were cancelled or shortened.
Andrea Gold, one of the attorneys representing Mr. Szafarz in the
lawsuit, stated, "It's important that employers know they cannot
take advantage of their employees.  This reporting time law exists
for a reason.  If employees are scheduled to work, and show up to
do that work, they deserve to be compensated in accordance with
the law."

The case seeks treble damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief on behalf of Mr. Szafarz and the many other similarly
situated Massachusetts employees who have been denied Reporting
Pay by UPS.  Mr. Szafarz is represented by Andrea Gold and Sophia
Goren of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Elizabeth Ryan --
eryan@baileyglasser.com -- John Roddy -- jroddy@baileyglasser.com
-- and Sandra Henson Kinney -- skinney@baileyglasser.com -- of
Bailey & Glasser LLP.

Founded by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in 1999 in Charleston,
West Virginia, Bailey & Glasser LLP has grown to include 51
lawyers, with offices in nine states and the District of Columbia.
The firm's complex litigation practice focuses on high-stakes
commercial litigation; class actions for consumers, insureds,
investors, and retirement plan participants; catastrophic injury
and defective product cases; antitrust; and whistleblower
lawsuits.  The firm has extensive experience in energy law, and
litigates energy cases in trial courts, bankruptcy courts,
regulatory agencies, and appellate courts.  It has a major
corporate practice, and handles business matters ranging from
assisting Chinese investors in acquiring US assets, to IPOs, to
the negotiation and execution of billions of dollars in commercial
transactions.

Tycko & Zavareei LLP -- http://www.tzlegal.com-- is a bicoastal
law firm with offices in Washington, D.C. and Oakland, CA, and has
a long, successful record of litigating complex cases.  The firm
routinely handles large and complex matters throughout the
country, advocating on behalf of individuals fighting for their
civil rights, employees asking for their rightful wages, consumers
seeking redress for unfair business practices, whistleblowers
exposing fraud and corruption, and non-profit entities and
businesses facing difficult litigation.


UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Action Ruling in Army Corps Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schleifstein, writing for NOLA.com, reports that the U.S.
Justice Department has formally appealed a federal judge's
approval of class action status for a lawsuit blaming the Army
Corps of Engineers for declining lost property values caused in
St. Bernard Parish and New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward by floodwaters
during Hurricane Katrina and later storms.  That status would make
thousands of residents and businesses eligible for damage awards
that could total billions of dollars.

In her May ruling, Court of Claims Judge Susan Braden said she had
entered only a partial final judgment -- awarding $3.16 million
plus interest to six "test case" landowners in St. Bernard Parish
and the Lower 9th Ward -- to let the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit review that and earlier decisions she made in the
case when the Justice Department appealed. The Justice Department
submitted its appeal to the appeals court in Washington on June
30, and the court posted the notice online on July 6. The court
hears appeals of cases decided by the Court of Claims and the
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

The Justice Department's notice of appeal is just the first step
in a process that is likely to take months, as each side presents
written arguments.  The appeals court may also decide to hold a
hearing on those arguments before ruling.

In an earlier, May 1, 2015, ruling in the case, Judge Braden found
that the corps, through the "construction, expansions, operation
and failure to maintain the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, caused
increased storm surge flooding on plaintiffs' properties during
Hurricane Katrina and subsequent hurricanes and severe storms,
effecting a temporary taking under the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution."  That amendment, more widely known
for forbidding forced testimony against one's self in a criminal
case, prohibits the federal government from taking the value of
property without "just compensation."

A week later, Judge Braden convened a settlement conference in New
Orleans and told the parties to discuss mediation or confirm her
opinion.  The Justice Department refused, indicating that it would
instead appeal.  Both sides later decided to let Judge Braden
issue the partial final judgment that she announced this May, as
to present a broader view of the case to the appeals court.

In that ruling, Braden found the corps owes St. Bernard Parish
$863,363 for temporary lost value of three properties that it owns
and that were part of the test case.  And it owes New Orleans
almost $2.6 million in lost property tax revenue that would have
been collected from landowners in the Lower 9th Ward in 2006 and
2007.  St. Bernard Parish was not owed lost tax revenue because
taxes paid by its property owners were more closely aligned with
the taxes due in 2006 and 2007.

The takings suit was filed in October 2005, barely two months
after Katrina struck.  Judge Braden has said she was forced to
delay key rulings in the case because more conventional damage
lawsuits were still pending in federal court in New Orleans.

Those cases included more than 500,000 claimants in the
New Orleans area.  They were thrown out when courts ruled that the
Corps of Engineers was immune from damages because of a 1928 law
governing construction of flood control projects or because the
corps was using its judgment authority as allowed under federal
law.

A separate class action damage lawsuit filed against the Sewerage
& Water Board is still pending in the Orleans Parish Civil
District Court.  That case involves only properties flooded by the
17th Street Canal and charges that the S&WB and the state of
Louisiana improperly allowed the dredging of the canal before
Katrina.  That dredging and the improperly designed floodwall on
the New Orleans side of the canal were responsible for the
floodwall's failure, the suit asserts.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: October 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID SCHWARTZ

                        v.

URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., et al

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-5978

TO:      ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
COMMON STOCK OF URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. ("URBAN") DURING THE PERIOD
FROM MARCH 12, 2013 THROUGH AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 9, 2013, AND
HELD SUCH STOCK UNTIL AT LEAST SEPTEMBER 9, 2013

YOU ARE NOTIFIED, under a June 14, 2016 Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, of a
hearing to be held on October 31, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Mark A. Kearney, United States District Judge, at the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the
claims in the Litigation for the principal amount of $8.5 million,
plus interest, should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application
of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses
and Lead Plaintiff's expenses in connection with this Litigation
should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ANY URBAN COMMON STOCK
DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 12, 2013 THROUGH AND INCLUDING
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT
OF THIS LITIGATION.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing
to Urban Outfitters Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator,
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 3747,
Portland, OR 97208-3747, or on the Internet at
www.UrbanOutfittersSecuritiesLitigation.com.  If you are a Class
Member, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail or online no
later than October 24, 2016, showing that you are entitled to
recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the
Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to Urban
Outfitters Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Epiq
Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 3747, Portland, OR
97208-3747, postmarked by September 16, 2016.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
fee and expense application filed must be received or filed no
later than September 16, 2016:

with the CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA  19106

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiff at ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD LLP, ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART, ESQ., 655 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE
1900, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101.

DATED: June 14, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
URL: www.UrbanOutfittersSecuritiesLitigation.com


USRG CALIFORNIA: Faces "Davis" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USRG (California)
Inc. The case is captioned Terri Davis, the Plaintiff v. USRG
(California) Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 34-2016-00196790-CU-OE-
GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2016).

USRG (California) Inc. is listed under residential property
managers, with headquarters located at 15771 ROCKFIELD BLVD 200,
IRVINE, CA 92618.


VALVE CORPORATION: Faces "C.B." Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valve Corporation.
The case is styled C.B, On Behalf of Her Minor Son N.B.,
individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Valve Corporation, a Washington corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-61561-BB (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. Beth Bloom.

Valve Corporation is an American video game developer and digital
distribution company headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, PC
          156 N. Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659 9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659 9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Ordered to Provide Emissions Info in Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Dowling, writing for News.com.au, reports that Volkswagen
has again been asked by the Federal Court to produce more
"documents and detail" about how its diesel emissions cheating
software works.

The German car giant made its fourth court appearance at a class
action representing 100,000 owners in Sydney on July 7 in a
lengthy three-hour directions hearing.

Justice Foster was due to issue the orders on July 8, demanding
Volkswagen provide more detail on how "mode 1" and "mode 2"
emissions software controls worked, and the recall work to be
undertaken.

In the first mode, Volkswagen diesel vehicles knew they were being
tested in laboratory conditions and met emissions standards, while
the second mode disabled anti-pollution equipment when the cars
operated in normal driving conditions.
In April Justice Foster blasted VW for treating Australia as a
"backwater" for not supplying the required documents at that time.

This is the third time VW has been asked to provide more material
to the lawyers representing almost 100,000 owners of Volkswagen,
Audi and Skoda cars with diesel engines that cheat emissions
tests.

"Despite admitting that approximately 100,000 diesel vehicles need
to be 'fixed' and despite compensating American motorists with a
reported $15 billion package over similar issues, Volkswagen, Audi
and Skoda all deny they have broken local laws," said Jason
Geisker, principal, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.

"For year after year these companies banked profits from selling
so-called 'clean' diesel cars, but they now refuse to compensate
any Australian motorists. This is simply not good enough."
Volkswagen repeated its earlier statement that emissions
regulations in Australia differ greatly from those in the US.

"Volkswagen believes that the best outcome for its customers is
the technical solution," a statement from VW Australia boss
Michael Bartsch said.

"This will update the software in vehicles which are the subject
of the class action at no charge to customers."
Mr. Bartsch said there is no compensation due to European or
Australian customers.

"The relevant facts and complex legal issues that have played a
role in coming to these agreements in the United States are
materially different from those in Europe and Australia," said
Mr. Bartsch.

"Volkswagen is committed to resolving the diesel matter for all
affected customers around the world quickly and efficiently.  We
recognize the need to regain their trust and we are doing
everything possible to achieve this."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Escapes Emission Cheating Fines in Germany
---------------------------------------------------------
Birgit Jennen and Karin Matussek at Bloomberg News report that
Volkswagen AG is set to escape fines from the German government
even after cheating on emissions tests for years, reflecting a
softer political stance that's increasingly drawing ire following
a generous deal for U.S. drivers.

Germany's influential Bild newspaper took Volkswagen to task for
failing to compensate more than 2 million affected owners after
Chief Executive Officer Matthias Mueller rejected compensation in
Europe as an excessive burden.  Little support is likely from the
German government, with the Transport Ministry not planning to
seek fines. The regulator is instead relying on a recall to
resolve customer complaints and an ongoing criminal investigation
to determine whether any further measures are warranted.

"We now have a situation in which Volkswagen is required to return
the cars to a legally compliant condition," German Transport
Minister Alexander Dobrindt told reporters on July 6 in Berlin.
"That is what is appropriate to remedy the damage that's been
done."

While Volkswagen is paying affected U.S. owners as much as $10,000
each as part of a $15.3 billion settlement, Germany has balked at
harshly punishing the manufacturer over rigging vehicles to turn
on full pollution controls only during official tests.  Germany,
which is closely tied to Volkswagen via the state of Lower
Saxony's 20 percent stake and the political influence of the
automaking giant, approved a low-cost fix that consists of a
software upgrade and in some cases a piece of pipe with mesh on
one end.

'Blank Check'

Adding on compensation could be crushing for Volkswagen as any
deal in Germany would also probably apply to all 8.5 million
tainted cars in Europe -- 17 times the number in the U.S. That's
not stopping critics though.

"It's not acceptable that the government doesn't take any real
consequences from the emissions scandal and gives a blank check
for tricks and deceptions," said Oliver Krischer, a member of
Germany's Bundestag from the opposition Green Party who is leading
a parliamentary investigation committee.  "It needs to be
explained why companies in Germany don't pay fines.  It's also not
OK that European drivers are treated worse than American VW
drivers."

Instead of payments, "German customers get a letter and an
appointment at the workshop to fix the cheating diesels," Bild
wrote in story published on July 6.  "Are German customers second
class?"

Volkswagen declined to comment beyond Mr. Mueller's statements in
the newspaper interview.  The carmaker remains under criminal
investigation in Germany, and that process could still yield
fines.

'Blackmail'

Volkswagen CEO Mueller "is playing out a new card by telling the
government: 'Don't put too much pressure on us, or we will go
bust, and then all the jobs are gone'," Christoph Rother --
christopher.rother@hausfeld.com -- head of the Berlin office of
law firm Hausfeld, which is involved in a class-action lawsuit
against Volkswagen in the U.S. and represents clients in Germany.
"He's playing blackmail using a horror scenario," rather than
discussing options like vouchers for buying a new car.

The wide disparity in the handling of the crisis stems from
equally large differences in legal and regulatory structures
between the U.S. and the European Union.  The lack of class-action
lawsuits is a major disadvantage for European consumers,
undermining their leverage in negotiations.  Europe also doesn't
clearly ban switch-off devices -- the bit of software at the heart
of the scandal -- and allows them to be used if they help protect
the engine.

Germany has also been at pains to show emissions issues go beyond
Volkswagen, strong-arming automakers in April to upgrade 630,000
vehicles to fix temperature-control setups that pushed the
boundaries of regulation.  It also tried to put pressure on Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles NV, but was brushed off by Italy, which has
authority over the company's European vehicles.

"There's an attempt to protect Volkswagen to a degree, as
Volkswagen could be pushed to a breaking point if the same
criteria applied in Germany as in the U.S.," said Stefan Bratzel,
director of the Center of Automotive Management at the University
of Applied Sciences in Bergisch Gladbach, Germany.  "The Transport
Ministry is also damaged by the whole affair, so they want it to
go away."


WALGREENS BOOTS: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2016, that oral argument was
held on June 2, 2016, in a class action appeal.

On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class
actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's
definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on
December 29, 2014. The actions asserted claims that the definitive
proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various
respects.

On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to
which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The
proposed settlement was subject to, among other things, court
approval.

On July 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement,
and on November 20, 2015, the Court entered an order of final
approval of the settlement. On December 17, 2015, a purported
class member who had objected to the settlement appealed the
Court's order. The appeal was docketed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Oral argument was held
on June 2, 2016.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Still Defends Illinois Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend a shareholder securities class action in
Illinois.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals.

On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff
filed a response to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015,
and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on February
5, 2016.

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


WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action for $16.3 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
MortgageOrb reports that Wells Fargo Bank will pay about $16.3
million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it illegally
used an auto-dialer to call mortgage borrowers' mobile phones
without their consent -- a violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

The suit, Markos v. Well Fargo Bank NA, was originally filed on
April 14, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.  The court gave preliminary approval for the
settlement to proceed.  Depending on the number of claims, each
affected borrower will be entitled to collect about $25 to $75.
That's after deductions are made for cost of notice, claims
administration, and court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs.

The TCPA prohibits mortgage servicers (as well as telemarketers)
from making auto-dialed phone calls and texts to borrowers' cell
phones unless the servicer has express written consent from the
borrower.  Attorneys for Wells Fargo had argued that the bank did,
in fact, have the needed consent; however, the court found
otherwise.

It is not clear from published reports whether Wells Fargo did, in
fact, obtain written consent; sometimes TCPA violations have to do
with how written consent was obtained and, in particular, whether
borrowers knew they were giving consent.


WENDY'S CO: Hackers Steal Customers' Credit, Debit Card Data
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Wendy's said hackers were able
to steal customers' credit and debit card information at 1,025 of
its U.S. restaurants, far more than it originally thought.

The hamburger chain said on July 7 hackers were able to obtain
card numbers, names, expiration dates and codes on the card,
beginning in late fall.  Some customers' cards were used to make
fraudulent purchases at other stores.

Wendy's Co. urged customers to check their accounts for any
fraudulent purchases.

The Dublin, Ohio, company first announced it was investigating a
possible hack in January.  In May, it said malware was found in
fewer than 300 restaurants.  About a month later, it said two
types of malware were found and the number of restaurants affected
was "considerably higher."

There are more than 5,700 Wendy's restaurants in the U.S.

Customers can see which locations were affected through the
Wendy's website.  The company said it is offering free one-year
credit monitoring to people who paid with a card at any of those
restaurants.


WORD ENTERPRISES: "McFarlin" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Chad McFarlin, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. The Word Enterprises, LLC, The Word
Enterprises Haslett, LLC, The Word Enterprises Lansing, LLC, The
Word Enterprises Owosso, LLC, The Word Enterprises Perry, LLC, The
Word Enterprises St. Johns, LLC And Kevin Dittrich, Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-12536 (E.D. Mich., July 6, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Michigan Minimum Wage Law and the Michigan Workforce
Opportunity Wage Act.

Defendants operate multiple Hungry Howie's pizza franchise stores
in and around central Michigan where McFarlin worked as a delivery
driver. Defendants allegedly do not reimburse drivers for the
reasonable cost of driving their vehicles for delivery.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Blanchard, Esq.
     BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC
     221 North Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Telephone: (734) 929-4313
     Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

            - and -

     William D. Buchanan, Esq.
     LEE W. BARRON, P.C.
     112 Front Street
     Alton, IL 62002
     Phone: 618-462-9160
     Fax: 618-462-9167
     Email: will@leebarronlaw.com

            - and -

     Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Telephone: (314) 997-9150
     Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
     Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: To Settle Reyes Action for $37.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016, that Zions
intends to enter into a settlement with the plaintiff in the class
action case, Reynaldo Reyes v Zions First National Bank, et al,
for approximately $37.5 million. The Reyes case relates to payment
processing services provided by Modern Payments, a small
subsidiary of Zions, to ten telemarketing or webmarketing
companies primarily during the 2006-2008 timeframe. Zions
terminated this business in 2010, prior to the filing of the Reyes
case, and contemporaneously improved the effectiveness of certain
ACH monitoring controls relevant to the case. Although it has
agreed to settle the case for practical reasons, Zions denies any
wrongdoing relating to the Reyes case. Zions had fully accrued for
its obligations with respect to the settlement as of December 31,
2015 and therefore does not expect to incur additional expenses as
a result of the settlement. Finalization of the settlement is
subject to the execution of definitive agreements, additional
court processes and final court approval. As a result, there can
be no assurance that a definitive settlement will ultimately be
entered into or become effective.

                       Nov. 21 Hearing Set

Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C. on July 11 disclosed that Magistrate
Judge Timothy Rice of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted preliminary approval to a
$37.5 million class action settlement with Zions First National
Bank and two subsidiaries of claims brought under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization ("RICO") Act.

The case alleged that the defendants provided payment processing
services to allegedly fraudulent telemarketing and web marketing
companies.  Over 500,000 consumers' accounts were alleged to have
been debited on behalf of the fraudulent entities.

The plaintiff's claims and supporting facts were the subject of a
detailed opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit in September 2015
(http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/141228p.pdf). The Third
Circuit's docket includes friend of court briefs filed in support
of plaintiff's position by, among others, the AARP, the Consumer
Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, and
Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Richard Blumenthal of
Connecticut, and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

A final approval hearing on the settlement has been set for
November 21, 2016.

The class is represented by Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C.

The case is Reyes v. Zions First National Bank., 10-cv-0345, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C. (LGD) -- http://www.langergrogan.com
-- is a nationally recognized complex commercial litigation law
firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


* ABA Wants CFPB to Examine Cost, Benefit of Arbitration Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABA Banking Journal reports that ABA on July 6 sent a memo to
members of Congress opposing an amendment to the financial
services agencies spending bill.  The amendment, proposed by Reps.
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), would strike a
provision in the bill requiring the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau to study the costs and benefits to consumers of eliminating
arbitrations in consumer financial contracts in favor of class
action lawsuits.

The CFPB recently proposed a rule to drastically limit the use of
mandatory arbitration agreements for financial products and
services, but ABA pointed out that the research the bureau
conducted in support of the rule was "incomplete and even
contradictory."  The association urged members of Congress to vote
down the amendment to ensure that the CFPB properly assesses the
effects of its proposed rule on consumers before moving forward.
ABA added that in general, consumers tend to fare better in
arbitration than in class action suits.

"According the CFPB's own class action sample, lawyers made about
$1 million each, while the average consumer walked away with about
$32.  But that average consumer recovery assumes that there is any
consumer recovery.  In fact, only 15 percent of the putative class
actions the CFPB studied reached a class settlement, and only 4
percent of those class members received a check," the memo said.
"Based on the CFPB's research to date, it is impossible to justify
denying consumers access to efficient, user-friendly arbitration
in favor of diverting them into class actions where they have no
control and little chance of success."


* Cape Coral Property Owners Mull Pollution, Tax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Wright, writing for Fox4, reports that having water front
property is a luxury.  But now, people living on canals are crying
out that higher taxes are unfair.

Some people say as water quality goes down, so should their taxes.

Property owners are frustrated.  Not only do they want their taxes
lowered, many think it's time for a class action lawsuit like the
BP oil spill.

They want to hold the companies accountable for polluting Lake
Okeechobee and our waterways.

"I would like to see my taxes get lowered.  We are being treated
like second class citizens right now, as far as the water quality
goes," says Guy Lee, who lives on a Cape Coral canal.

Antonia Rodgers lives on a canal and she agrees, adding "The
quality of the water is very bad and it is not right that we are
paying these high taxes."

Mike Lombardo specializes in Cape Coral waterfront property and
says this green sludge is hurting business.  He compares it to the
BP oil spill, saying those who polluted "Lake O" could eventually
become the center of a class action lawsuit.  "Your house is your
biggest investment. and now somebody has dumped these chemicals
into your water that have caused a toxin to bloom outside your
home and you didn't sign up for that."

But people like Fran Lee are ready to sign up.  "The time has come
for a class action lawsuit. and we should all join. Everybody who
has water front in Cape Coral.  There is a significant amount of
people."


* Copyright Trolls Abuse Canada's "Notice-and-Notice" System
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Cushing, writing for Techdirt, reports that in the United
States, copyright trolls are finding it more difficult to save on
filing fees by pursuing file sharers en masse.  More than a few
judges have shot down attempts to file infringement suits against
"Does 1-30," etc., ruling that these defendants are improperly
joined.

Meanwhile, in Canada, copyright trolls are trying a novel approach
to suing alleged file sharers in big bunches: the reverse class
action.  Voltage Pictures is suing a nominative "class" of Does
yet to be named for copyright infringement.  This is its attempt
to route around restrictions placed on it by another court, as
well as the costs associated with complying with the demands.

But in doing so, Voltage Pictures is making a mess of Canadian
privacy laws.  Rogers, the service provider standing between
Voltage and the subscriber information it's demanding, wants to
know why the studio is abusing Canada's "notice and notice" system
to obtain information it's not supposed to be able to acquire
without a court order.

[V]oltage is using the notice-and-notice system to argue that it
is entitled to subscriber information.  It argues in court
documents that the system is designed to allow copyright holders
to "inexpensively identify and locate the infringers of
copyright."

Yet the reality is that the government did not intend for the
rules to make it easy to disclose the identity of alleged
infringers, with the ISPs prohibited from simply handing over such
information.

Canadian courts have established rules that may compel ISPs to
hand over subscriber information, but there are strict limitations
in how the information can be used and restrictions on public
disclosure.

The "notice and notice" system is supposed to be used by ISPs to
pass on infringement allegations to affected customers.  What it's
not supposed to do is provide subscriber info to rights holders.
In the past, rights holders have routed around this perceived
"limitation" by inserting settlement demands into something that's
only supposed to be a notification.

Now, in this reverse class action, Voltage is going to use
whichever subscriber name it happens to pry loose first as the
"lead defendant" in the lawsuit.  Instead of "Doe," the lawsuit
will be amended to carry that unlucky person's name on the first
page, and designate that person as "representative" of every other
Doe Voltage has yet to unmask.  Obviously, the privacy
implications for that person are immense.

By using this odd tactic, Voltage can hope to extract subscriber
info that wouldn't be released to it under the "notice and notice"
system.  The reversal of roles in the litigation also poses other
problems.  While it's not too tough for multiple plaintiffs to
secure representation in class action suits against a single,
most-likely profitable corporation, it's highly unlikely that the
"class action" defendants will find adequate representation,
either as a group or individually.

In total, this role reversal is nothing more than a trolling
operation trying to maintain maximum efficiency by routing around
any obstacles placed before it by courts or legislators.  Using
nothing more than batches of IP addresses harvested by
"infringement monitoring" software, Voltage and others are
continuing to attempt to convert courtrooms into revenue streams.


* Insurance Cos. May Help Homeowners with Foundation Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune,
reports that some insurance companies have expressed a willingness
to participate in a program that would provide financial help to
Connecticut homeowners with crumbling foundations, according to
the state Attorney General's Office.
Hundreds of Connecticut houses in the eastern portion of the state
have had cracking in their basement walls, allegedly due to faulty
concrete.  The situation is the subject of litigation and an
investigation by Attorney General George Jepsen's office.

"My office has been engaged for a number of months in negotiations
with insurance companies seeking to develop a program through
which homeowners who are experiencing crumbling foundations could
receive significant financial assistance in fixing their homes,"
Mr. Jepsen said in a statement.

His office is working with Gov. Dannel Malloy's administration,
and the state Department of Insurance and state Department of
Consumer Protection.

The state has received word from a "small number of insurance
companies that they would be inclined to participate," Mr. Jepsen
said.

He declined to identify the insurance companies at this point.
"I am grateful for their civic-minded willingness to consider a
role in addressing this pressing public problem," Mr. Jepsen said
. "However, in order for the program to go forward, we need
significantly more companies to commit to take part.  I would
strongly encourage Connecticut homeowners who are experiencing
this problem, or who have friends or family members who are
experiencing this, to contact their insurance companies and urge
them to [do so]."

The Hartford-based Travelers insurance company is among the
companies working with the state so far.  The company issued a
statement.

"We have been working closely with the Connecticut Department of
Insurance, Department of Consumer Protection and the Attorney
General on a program to assist homeowners in Northeast Connecticut
with foundation problems caused by pyrrhotite," said Matt
Bordonaro, the company's head of media relations, in an email.
"We are hopeful that this program comes to fruition as it will
help eligible Connecticut homeowners through this situation."

According to Mr. Jepsen, officials believe that significant levels
of the mineral pyrrhotite in stone aggregate used in the
production of concrete is a substantial contributing factor to the
crumbling foundations experienced by some homeowners in eastern
Connecticut.  However, he said more work is needed to understand
all the contributing factors involved.

Lora Rae Anderson, spokeswoman for the State Department of
Consumer Protection, said on June 30 the department had received
235 complaints about deteriorating concrete foundations.
State Consumer Protection Commissioner Jonathan Harris said in an
email that his department encourages this effort to help
homeowners as one resource which hopefully can be made available
to them.

"The Department of Consumer Protection is continuing their
investigation thoroughly and deliberately so that consumers and
other parties seeking to develop resources for homeowners have the
best information possible," Mr. Harris said.  "We know that
everyone has a role to play in building resources for homeowners
who are suffering, including insurance companies."

The crumbling foundation problem is the subject of ongoing
litigation.  In January, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District
Court on behalf of homeowners against their insurance companies,
claiming they have refused to pay to fix the foundation problems.
The plaintiffs are seeking a court order compelling the insurance
providers, over 100 of them all around the country, to pay for new
basement walls, along with reimbursement for the cost of
litigation and attorney fees and interest.

Attorney Ryan Barry of Barry & Barall in Manchester, who
represents the plaintiffs, said, "George Jepsen is an excellent
Attorney General, and anything he is doing to bring these
insurance companies to their senses is a big help."

The homes in question were built in the 1980s and 1990s, and their
foundations have such problems as spiderweb cracking, holes and
concrete chipping, and need to be replaced, according to the
litigation.  The lawsuit claims each of the plaintiffs' homes has
basement walls that are irreversibly deteriorating as a result of
"defective" concrete.

Companies involved in production of the concrete have asserted the
problems being experienced by homeowners are due to an
installation problem, rather than any problem with the product
itself.


* Merchants Face Consumers Suits Following EMV-Chip Card Shift
--------------------------------------------------------------
Autumn Cafiero Giusti, writing for Payments Source, reports that
merchants are facing consumer lawsuits stemming from the
introduction of EMV-chip card security at the point of sale in the
U.S., exposing the issues many stores must contend with now that
they are held liable for fraud and chargebacks.

In February, a Wendy's customer filed a class action against the
fast food chain, alleging that it failed to protect customers'
credit and debit card information, as well as other personally
identifiable information.  The suit claims all of that information
was exposed when Wendy's experienced a data breach in January, and
that Wendy's failed to take "adequate and reasonable measures" to
make sure that its data systems were protected beforehand.

Although the lawsuit does not specifically reference EMV, it does
allege that Wendy's was not using the most up-to-date processing
equipment.  The suit suggests that hackers employed the same
malware that enabled recent cyber attacks such as the breaches at
Home Depot and Target.

"While many retailers, banks and card companies have responded to
these recent breaches by adopting technology and security
practices that help [make] transactions and stored data more
secure, Wendy's has acknowledged that it did not do so," the suit
states.

Lawsuits are not the only consequence merchants face.  Typically
if a merchant suffers a data breach, it can expect fines for
violating the Payment Card Industry data security standard, which
describes how organizations must protect cardholder data.

There may also be a reputational hit and a loss of business.  eBay
faced this issue after a 2014 cyberattack led it to ask users to
reset their passwords; many consumers did not, and even those that
chose a new password did not resume their previous level of
activity.  The breach became a major factor in eBay's decision to
lower its full-year revenue guidance by $200 million.

But consumer lawsuits are a new risk, experts say.

"We are not aware of any consumers suing merchants after the
merchant's point of sale system was hacked," said Paul Hunter,
president and CEO of Tampa-based processor Sterling Payment
Technologies.

Attorney Stephen Aschettino -- saschettino@foley.com -- chairman
of the payment team at Foley & Lardner LLP, says that although the
Wendy's case is noteworthy, it's not necessarily the "test pilot"
case the industry has been watching out for because no one is
placing chargeback liability on the retailer.

"I think they're just trying to show that Wendy's failure to use
the EMV chip is some form of negligence," Mr. Aschettino says.
"If my analysis is correct, I think that's very different than the
liability shift issue that we in the industry are very worried
about."

Mr. Aschettino says he's still waiting to see the type of lawsuit
in which a credit card company denies a customer's chargeback, and
then the customer goes after the merchant for damages.

A closer example, he says, is a lawsuit filed in March by B&R
Supermarket against most of the major card networks and issuers
-- including Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Wells Fargo
-- claiming thousands of dollars in losses because of the EMV
shift.  B&R owns Milam's Market and Grove Liquors in Florida and
claims it bought all-new equipment for its stores well in advance
of the liability shift but never received EMV certification from
the card networks.  As a result, B&R was held liable for $10,000
in charges in four and a half months because of fraud, chargebacks
and fees.

Mr. Aschettino says it's likely that the supermarket chain isn't
alone in its predicament.

"Depending on the magnitude of the chargebacks and resources of
the merchants, some merchants may be willing to challenge those
rules," he says.  "I do foresee there will be more litigation
going forward on these issues."

Vulnerable merchants, savvy consumers

The potential for future lawsuits stems from the fact that many
merchants have taken steps to purchase new EMV equipment and train
their employees how to use the system, but are still stuck having
to use the old magstripe systems because they're still waiting for
certification from the card networks.

"The whole thing is resulting in merchants facing losses that they
wouldn't have to pay otherwise.  I don't know where the inherent
fairness is in that," said Irvine, Calif.-based attorney Paul
Rianda, who specializes in the bankcard industry.

Hunter predicts it will take about two years for most of the
certifications to be complete.  "Merchants have had a difficult,
if not impossible time, being ready in time for the liability
shift," he says.  "And we are seeing a rapid increase in consumers
purposefully charging back transactions when they see a merchant
not utilizing EMV technology in a card present environment."

Sal DiDonato, CEO of Red Bank, N.J., merchant services provider
Priority Payments Local, says although it's unclear whether more
lawsuits will surface, he's noticed an increasing number of
cardholders are savvy about EMV requirements.  "More and more
consumers are becoming aware of the liability shift and trying to
take advantage when they see fit," he says.

That's not to say that filing these lawsuits will be easy.

Mr. Rianda says ISOs and merchants have consulted with him about
problems they've had with EMV, but that lawsuits can be difficult
to bring against the parties empowered to make changes.

"Other than suing your processor, what else are you going to do?"
he asks.  "Usually the amounts are so small that unless you do a
class-action suit, there's not a whole lot you can do for them."

As far as consumer-led lawsuits like the Wendy's case go,
merchants are in a compromising position from allegation that they
failed to protect consumers' information from a data breach. Ever
since the 2007 TJ Maxx data breach, concerns have mounted about
hackers pulling off data theft on a large scale, and those kinds
of attacks can be damaging to a retailer's reputation, said Rick
Oglesby, partner with Centennial, Colo., industry consulting firm
Double Diamond Group.

"Regardless of what happens with this particular suit, anything
that's consumer-driven is going to impact the brand," Mr. Oglesby
says.  "And whether they win or lose, merchants don't want any
part of this kind of suit at all."

Mr. Aschettino cautions that banks, merchants and anyone else who
could be implicated in these types of lawsuits need to have a well
thought-out position ahead of time, and to implement strategies to
make sure that these suits don't fuel the creation of laws that
are hostile to the industry.

"The whole EMV shift paradigm was designed to protect consumers,"
he says.  "If the failure to adopt it can somehow be used as a
sword by the plaintiffs against merchants, I don't believe that
was the intent."


* New White-Collar Overtime Rules Burdensome for Companies
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that after
more than two years of keeping employers in suspense, the U.S.
Department of Labor finally released its final rules on white-
collar overtime exemptions.  The new rules, which take effect Dec.
1, will make an estimated 4.2 million additional U.S. workers
eligible to receive overtime pay from their companies.

Many business and employer groups have sounded the alarm about the
new regulations, characterizing them as burdensome for companies
and potentially bad for workers.  While there's little doubt the
final rules will affect plenty of companies, their legal
departments do have choices in how to respond to the changes.

Currently, in order to qualify for time-and-a-half overtime pay
for work done beyond 40 hours a week under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, white-collar employees such as administrative
employees, supervisors and professionals cannot make more than
$23,660 a year, the threshold set back in 2004.  The new rules
will raise that amount to $47,476 a year.

The DOL plans to update the earnings requirements every three
years using a set formula, making it likely that by 2020 even more
workers will join the nonexempt fold.

Companies can go in a few different ways in handling the imminent
change.  One option is reclassifying a potentially large swath of
employees who now fall under the salary threshold from exempt to
nonexempt.

Reclassification would lead to them getting more overtime pay.
That's obviously something they'll be pleased about.  But it's
worth noting that there are some potential drawbacks.  Employees
will have to log their hours more closely, and they could
sacrifice some workplace flexibility.  "If they are reclassified,
they are going to have to punch that time clock," says
Tammy McCutchen -- tmccutchen@littler.com -- a principal at
Littler Mendelson.

Another way employers can handle the new overtime rules is to
change salaries.  They could give salary raises to those white-
collar workers who currently make less than $47,476 per year in
order to keep them exempt from overtime.

On the other hand, companies could cut worker pay to actually
offset any additional overtime their employees might now be
entitled to.  "They might even have more part-time employees,"
says John Thompson -- jthompson@fisherphillips.com -- a partner at
Fisher & Phillips.  "There are all kinds of variables as to how
this might play out."

Regardless of how companies respond, they must face the reality
that at least for the foreseeable future, the new overtime rules
are the law of the land, says Michael Arnold --
MArnold@mintz.com -- a member at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
Glovksy and Popeo.  He says that employers "can't bury their heads
in the sand" or wait until the last minute to adjust their
compensation policies, they need to be proactive.

"For a lot of employers, a lot has to happen," Mr. Arnold says.
"It's not as simple as pressing a button in a system and changing
someone from exempt to nonexempt, or pressing a button and
lowering or raising their salary."

He says it's important to make choices about worker classification
and pay that align with job description, business strategy and
productivity as well as morale and organizational culture.
Messaging and communication with the workforce are also "super
critical," he adds, as the new regulations have been well-
publicized and many employees might already have their own
opinions and questions about how they will be affected.


                            *********

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  * * *