CAR_Public/160720.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 144




                            Headlines


1ST CENTURY: Settlement Reached in Stockholder Action
ABBSTER ENTERPRISES: "Rodgers" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Tips
ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: "York" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
AES DRILLING: Faces Texas Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Torus Suit Alleges Securities Market Fixing

BARRICK GOLD: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BIG LOTS: Securities Lawsuit in Discovery
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Larry Carr Files Concussion Suit
BROADCOM LIMITED: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Action Pending
BROADCOM LIMITED: "Varjabedian" Class Action Appeal Pending

BROADCOM LIMITED: Delaware Class Litigation On-Going
BURNER FIRE: Faces "Viator" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
CARMIKE CINEMAS: Court Denied Bid for Temporary Restraining Order
CAYAN LLC: Unanswered Campbell-Ewald Questions Tackled in Mass.
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Strauch Plaintiffs File Class Cert. Bid

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in "Luther"
COWAY: Water Purifier Victims to File Class Action
CREDIT CONTROL: "Clancy" Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
DENALI HOLDING: Ruling Expected in 2016 on Motion to Dismiss
DENTAL CARE: Faces "Poburski" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Min. Wage Act

DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Windom" Suit Over ADA Violation
DUN & BRADSTREET: O&R Construction Seeks Settlement Approval
DUN & BRADSTREET: Die-Mension Seeks Approval of Class Settlement
DUN & BRADSTREET: Vinotemp Case Parties Negotiating Settlement
DUN & BRADSTREET: In Settlement Talks in Flow Sciences Case

DUN & BRADSTREET: In Settlement Talks in "Altaflo" Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Has Commenced in "Thomas" Suit
DUPONT CO: Liability Exposure to Rise Following Mass Tort Case
EASTERN PLATINUM: Shareholder's Bid to Commence Class Suit Denied
EAT-PISODE: Faces "Cano" Suit Alleging FLSA, NY Labor Law Breach

EMMANUEL VERSCHUEREN: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over FLSA Violation
ENTERPRISE FLEET: "Hamilton" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
EXELON CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Class Action
FCA US: Faces "Weber" Suit Over Defect in Gearshift of Vehicles
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customer Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Wins Dismissal of Propane Tank Claims
FINANCE OF AMERICA: "Christopher" Suit Claims FLSA Violation
FIRSTMERIT CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in S'holder Litig.
FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in Class Action Lawsuit Pending
GENESCO INC: To Defend Against New Jersey Class Suit

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces Va. Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
GRIFFIN LANDSCAPING: "Najera" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
HCP INC: "Ji-Yong" Sues Over Share Price Drop
HIH INSURANCE: Courts Ease Way for Shareholder Class Claims
HSBC FINANCE: Settled Jaffe v. Household Suit for $1.575-Bil.

IRCOPOL FINANCIAL: Sued Over Relabeled Nutritional Supplements
IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Morgan" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
ISRAEL: Court Refuses Request to Remove PM from Oil Spill Case
JOE'S COMPLETE: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging Violations of Labor Laws
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Lawsuit in New York Over RICO "Violations"

JVZ INVESTMENT: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action in U.S. Over Engine Failures
KRISPY KREME: Class Action Filed Challenging Merger
LENDING CLUB: "Mitchell" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of TCPA
LIPOCINE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action

LNN INC: Faces "Esparza" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Conference in "Gathmann-Landini" Adjourned
MDL 2627: Fact Discovery Closed, Expert Discovery Underway
MEREDITH CORP: Faces "Jager" Suit Over More Magazine Distribution
MIAMI TERMINAL: "Valverde" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

MIAMI THERAPEUTIC: Faces "Gomez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
MONTECITO WATER: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
MULTI-FINELINE: Settlement Reached in Merger Litigation
NAVISTAR INT'L: Status Conference in Warranty Suit Next Week
NAVISTAR INT'L: Oct. 25 Final Approval Hearing Set

NIMBLE STORAGE: Consolidated Securities Class Action Pending
OOMA INC: Securities Actions Consolidated
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in "Bushansky" Suit
PRIDE: D. Gibson Applies for First Opt-Out Class Action in UK
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Updates on "Hernandez" Suit

RIDDELL: Paul Hornung Sued Over Helmet-Related Concussions
ROCKWATER ENERGY: Faces "Gomez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
ROSS STORES: Class Action Pending in California
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Suit Pending
STRAIGHT PATH: Scheduling Order Entered in New Jersey Suit

SUMMIT WELL: Faces "Cantu" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
TENNESSEE: Holt Calls for Class Action Over Traffic Cameras
TILLY'S INC: Appeal Pending in "Christiansen" Suit
TILLY'S INC: Parties in "Rebolledo" Case Reached Resolution
TILLY'S INC: Parties Discuss Resolution of "Whitten" Case

TILLY'S INC: Demurrer in "Ward" Suit Pending
TIMBERCORP: Class Member Not Precluded by Anshun Estoppel
TORNADO PRODUCTION: Faces "Watts" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
URANIUM ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action in Texas
VALSPAR CORPORATION: Faces "Mitsopoulos" Class Action

VALVE: Faces Second Class Action Over CSGO Lotto
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Updates on Israel Securities Class Actions
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Updates on California Securities Litigation
VERINT SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid Pending
VIOLIN MEMORY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 26

VLAD RESTORATION: Faces "Alcantara-Flores" Wage and Hour Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: Denies Using Defeat Devices in Local Models
VIRGINIA: Sued Over Driver's License Suspensions for Poor
WEST VA AMERICAN: Oct. 25 Trial Set in Water Crisis Class Action
WHEATON FRANCISCAN: Ex-Employees File Pension Plan Class Action

YRC INC: "Schroeder" Labor Dispute Removed to N.D. Cal.
YUBA, CA: "Wolfe" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Benefits
ZENITH INSURANCE: "Antonio" Suit to Recover OT, Waiting Time Pay

* Food Allergy Suits Difficult to Prosecute, Legal Experts Say
* France's Draft Law on "Health Class Actions" Takes Effect
* New Santa Monica, Los Angels Leave Laws to Spur Class Suits
* Professional Plaintiff Threatens Companies with FCRA Suits
* Queensland Law Society Calls for Class Actions Reform

* UCI Civil Justice Center Gets Funding for Class Action Research


                            *********


1ST CENTURY: Settlement Reached in Stockholder Action
-----------------------------------------------------
1st Century Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2016, that
a settlement has been reached in a stockholder class action
lawsuit.

On May 3, 2016, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Dean Drulias v. 1st Century Bancshares, Inc. et. al,
Case No. 16CV294673 (the "Drulias Action"), was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
in connection with the Merger. The Drulias Action alleges, among
other things, that the members of the 1st Century board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties by causing 1st Century
to agree to the Merger based on the individual interests of such
directors as opposed to the best interests of 1st Century's
stockholders. The Drulias Action also alleges that 1st Century and
the 1st Century board failed to disclose material information in
the preliminary proxy statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Merger.

On June 10, 2016, the parties to the Drulias Action entered into a
stipulation of settlement providing for the settlement of the
Drulias Action (the "Stipulation of Settlement"). While the
defendants in the Drulias Action denied, and continue to
vigorously deny, all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability
or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of stockholders of
1st Century, and believe that no supplemental disclosure is
required under the applicable law, in order to avoid the burden,
inconvenience, expense and distraction of further litigation in
connection with the Drulias Action; put to rest and terminate all
of the claims that were or could have been asserted against the
defendants in the Drulias Action and preclude further proceedings;
and permit the Merger to be consummated without interference, 1st
Century has agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the Merger, all of
which are set forth below. The Stipulation of Settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to 1st Century stockholders. A hearing will be
scheduled at which the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara will consider the fairness, reasonableness
and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally
approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims that
were or could have been brought by members of a settlement class
that includes but is not limited to all persons or entities who
held shares of common stock of 1st Century, either of record or
beneficially, at any time from and including March 10, 2016
through and including the consummation of the Merger, challenging
any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure
made in connection therewith, including in the preliminary proxy
statement dated April 8, 2016 and the Definitive Proxy Statement,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement. The release and other terms of
the settlement will not be effective until approved by the court,
and there can be no assurance that the court will approve the
settlement. In addition, in connection with the proposed
settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will
seek approval of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
$400,000. 1st Century or its successor(s) or insurers will cause
to be paid those attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the
court. This settlement will not affect the amount of the merger
consideration that stockholders are entitled to receive in the
Merger. Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed
an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.


ABBSTER ENTERPRISES: "Rodgers" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Tips
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rodgers and Lauren Collins, on behalf of themselves and
all, other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v.
Abbster Enterprises LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00106 (N.D.
W.V., July 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
withheld tips pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate Buffalo Wild Wings franchise stores in
Martinsburg, West Virginia where Rodgers worked as server and
bartender while Collins as cashier.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Hammer, Esq.
     HAMMER, FERRETTI & SCHIAVONI
     408 W. King St
     Martinsburg, WV 25401
     Tel: (304) 264-8505
     Fax: (304) 264-8506
     Email: dhammer@hfslawyers.com


ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: "York" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beverly York and Linda Wilson, on behalf of themselves and other
persons similarly situated v. Advocates for Juvenile & Adult
Rights, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-12487 (E.D. La., July 7, 2016),
seeks damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs,
penalties, unpaid wages with interest and all other legal and/or
equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Advocates for Juvenile and Adults Rights, Inc. is a Louisiana
corporation with its principal office located at 7020 Boston
Drive, New Orleans where Plaintiffs were employed as direct
service workers. They claim to be denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexandra E. Mora, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA MORA
     322 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Tel: 504-566-0233
     Fax: 504-566-8997
     E-Mail: amora@alexmora.Com


AES DRILLING: Faces Texas Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY COLE and JOEL ELIZONDO, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. AES DRILLING FLUIDS, LLC, Case 4:16-
cv-02030 (S.D. Tex., July 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

AES DRILLING FLUIDS, LLC provides products and services for
complex subsurface conditions drilling with techniques such as
horizontal, directional, geologically deep, and offshore drilling.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

         - and -

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


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Torus Suit Alleges Securities Market Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Torus Capital, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York
Agency, BMO Capital Markets Corp., BNP Paribas Securities Corp.,
Barclays Capital Inc., Cantorfitzgerald & Co., Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Countrywide Securities Corporation, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc., Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Securities (USA)
Inc., Jefferies LLC,  J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Mizuho Securities USA Inc.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc.,
RBC Capital Markets, LLC, RBS Securities Inc., SO Americas
Securities, LLC, TD Securities (USA) LLC and UBS Securities LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05437 (S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2016),
seeks to recover damages against Defendants for their violations
of the Sherman Anti-trust Act and the Commodity Exchange Act.

Defendants' allegedly colluded and manipulated the market for U.S.
Treasury securities, including Treasury bills, notes, bonds,
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and floating rate notes as
well as derivative instruments based on such securities, including
U.S. Treasury futures and options resulting in reduced competition
in bond auctions and raises costs for taxpayers and investors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
      Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      Email: drichards@cohenmilstein.com
             meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

             - and -

      Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
      190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 357-0370
      Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

             - and -

      Manuel John Dominguez, Esq.
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 833-6575
      Email: dominguez@cohenmilstein.com

             - and -

      David A. Young, Esq.
      1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Email: dyoung@cohenmilstein.com

             - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 201-2855
      Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com

             - and -

      Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
      Faith E. Gay, Esq.
      Daniel P. Cunningham, Esq.
      Christine Chung, Esq.
      Sascha N. Rand, Esq.
      Steig D. Olson, Esq.
      51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 849-7000
      Email: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
             faithgay@quinnemanuel.com
             danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com
             christinechung@quinnemanuel.com
             sascharand@quinnemanuel.com
             steigolson@quinnemanuel.com

             - and -

       Karl S. Stern, Esq.
       711 Louisiana Street, Suite 500
       Houston, TX 77002
       Telephone: (713) 221-7000
       Email: karlstern@quinnemanuel.com

              - and -

       Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
       Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
       865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
       Los Angeles, CA 90017
       Telephone: (213) 443-3000
       Email: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com
              adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com


BARRICK GOLD: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
In re BARRICK GOLD SECURITIES
LITIGATION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF
BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION ("BARRICK") ON THE NEW YORK STOCK
EXCHANGE DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 7, 2009 THROUGH AND INCLUDING
NOVEMBER 1, 2013 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be
held on October 18, 2016, at 10:00 A.M., before the Honorable
Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge, at the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Courtroom 17B, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007.  The purpose of the
hearing is to determine: (1) whether the proposed settlement of
the claims in the securities litigation entitled In re Barrick
Gold Securities Litigation, Case No. 13 Civ. 3851 (RMB), should be
approved by the Court as fair and reasonable. The total amount of
the proposed settlement is $140,000,000, plus interest but minus
approximately $40,480,000 in legal and administration fees and
expenses; (2) whether this action should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Amended Stipulation of Settlement, dated June 9,
2016; (3) whether the plan of allocation of settlement proceeds is
fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (4)
whether the application of lead counsel, Motley Rice LLC, for the
payment of up to approximately $36,200,000 in attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses and up to approximately $4,280,000 in
administration fees and expenses, in connection with this
litigation should be approved.  You may attend and be heard at
this hearing.

It is anticipated that lead counsel will request attorneys' fees
of up to 25% of the settlement fund, plus litigation
expenses of up to $1,200,000.  It is also estimated that lead
counsel will request reimbursement of the costs for notice and
administration of the settlement of up to $4,280,000. Both counsel
fees and expenses and the administration fees and
expenses will be subject to Court approval.

IF YOU PURCHASED ANY PUBLICLY TRADED BARRICK COMMON STOCK ON THE
NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 7, 2009 THROUGH
AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 1, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THIS LITIGATION.

PLEASE READ AND REFER TO THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION, which contains the governing terms of the proposed
settlement and serves as the definitive notice to you.  The Notice
of Proposed Settlement of Class Action contains more details about
this litigation and the proposed settlement, including what you
must do to exclude yourself or "opt out" of the settlement, object
to the terms of the settlement, or submit a proof of claim for
payment pursuant to the settlement.

You will have until September 21, 2016 to opt out of the
settlement; you will have until September 21, 2016 to object to
the settlement; and you will have until September 29, 2016 to
submit a completed proof of claim.

You may also obtain downloadable copies of the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action, Proof of Claim and
Release form, and other important documents, by visiting the
website, www.BarrickGoldSecuritiesLitigation.com; calling
the Garden City Group at (855) 907-3222; or writing to Barrick
Gold Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o
Garden City Group, P.O. Box 10197, Dublin, OH 43017-3197. Do not
contact the Court.

If you have any questions about the settlement, you may contact
counsel for lead plaintiffs, Motley Rice LLC, Attention: James M.
Hughes, Christopher F. Moriarty, 28 Bridgeside Blvd., Mt.
Pleasant, SC 29464, (800) 768-4026.

DATED: June 29, 2016

A detailed copy of the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action is available at:

    http://bankrupt.com/misc/Barrick_Gold_Settlement_Notice.pdf


BIG LOTS: Securities Lawsuit in Discovery
-----------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit
is entering discovery.

The Company said, "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our
common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This
lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April
4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms.
Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to
August 23, 2012. On May 6, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the putative class action complaint. On January 21, 2016,
the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss, allowing some claims to move forward. The case
is entering the early stages of discovery."


BRIGHAM YOUNG: Larry Carr Files Concussion Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Larry Carr, a star linebacker
for the first Brigham Young University football team to earn a
bowl invitation, is suing the private school, saying BYU for
decades failed to educate players about the effects of
concussions.

The federal lawsuit, filed on July 7 in U.S. District Court in
Colorado, names BYU, the Colorado-based Western Athletic
Conference and the NCAA as defendants.  It seeks $5 million.

Mr. Carr's attorneys propose broadening the case into a class-
action lawsuit, allowing them to represent the claims of two
groups: players who participated in BYU's varsity program between
1952 and 2010, and the subset of varsity players between 1962 and
1999.  The WAC was established in 1962, the suit notes.  BYU moved
to the newly formed Mountain West Conference in 1999.  The NCAA,
the WAC and BYU, according to the suit, did not adopt
internationally accepted guidelines for managing concussions and
return-to-play protocols until 2010.

A lawsuit must be certified by a judge to become a class action.

The school, the WAC and the NCAA "kept their players in and the
public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing their
players," the suit says.

Before 2010, the suit alleges, BYU "ignored the medical risks"
with "reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations
of BYU student-athletes" by not enforcing return-to-play
guidelines for concussions.

Hope Shuler, the WAC's assistant commissioner for media relations,
said the league had no comment and would refer the matter to its
legal counsel.  BYU did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Carr is represented by Chicago and San Francisco attorneys at
Edelson PC, which has filed other lawsuits against the NCAA,
universities and athletic conferences on behalf of former student-
athletes suffering concussion-related symptoms and disorders,
according to its website.  He is also represented by the firm
Raizner Slania, which has handled similar litigation.

The NCAA now has a lengthy set of protocols related to diagnosing
and managing concussions.

Edelson PC has brought similar suits against conferences
(including the Pac-12) and schools (including the University of
Utah), citing symptoms related to head injuries.

"The reason that we're bringing so many of them instead of one
giant one is because the NCAA successfully argued to the court
that we shouldn't be allowed to bring just one big case," attorney
Jay Edelson said in May.  "Because of that, we have to file suit
on a per-school basis."

Former Eastern Illinois football player Adrian Arrington in 2011
sued the NCAA over its handling of concussions, and it resulted in
a proposed settlement that provided no damages to be paid to
players for injuries.

"These cases appear to be yet another attempt by Mr. Edelson to
interfere with efforts to move forward a settlement in the
Arrington case," Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer, said
earlier this year.  "The lawsuits reflect copycat activity and
just because they keep repeating the same arguments does not make
them true."

Mr. Carr, who lives in California, played for the Cougars from
1971 to '74 and was the leading tackler for the '74 team that won
the WAC championship and played in the Fiesta Bowl in LaVell
Edwards' third season as head coach.  The filing does not
specifically name Edwards or any individuals associated with the
athletic program or the administration at BYU, which is owned by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mr. Carr was involved in 2,000 to 3,000 "violent hits to the head"
during practices and games in his BYU career, the suit says, and
was taught to "always lead with his head."  BYU "knew about the
debilitating, long-term damages of concussions, concussion-related
injuries and subconcussive injuries [referred to as 'traumatic
brain injuries,' or 'TBIs'] that resulted from playing college
football."

Mr. Carr sustained "a significant number of concussions,"
resulting in "permanent brain damage" and "emotional distress,"
according to the suit, which asks for a jury trial and damages for
past, present and future medical expenses and lost future
earnings.

Repetitive trauma to the head has been shown to cause memory loss,
dementia and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), among others.


BROADCOM LIMITED: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2016, that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit relating to the
acquisition of BRCM.

The Company said, "Since the announcement of the Broadcom
Transaction, 11 putative class action complaints have been filed
by and purportedly on behalf of alleged BRCM shareholders. Two
putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned:
Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed
on June 18, 2015; and Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case
No. 8:15-cv-01303, filed on August 15, 2015, or the Federal
Actions. On September 2, 2015, plaintiffs in the Wytas, et al. v.
McGregor, et al. matter filed an amended complaint adding claims
under the U.S. federal securities laws."

"One putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned
Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353, filed June
2, 2015.

"Eight putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, captioned: Xu
v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790689-CU-SL-CXC,
filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; N.J. Building
Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v. Broadcom
Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4,
2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June
15, 2015; Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed
on July 2, 2015 (together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the
State Actions).

"The Federal Actions and State Actions name as defendants, among
other parties, BRCM, members of BRCM's board of directors and
Avago, and allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches.

"Additionally, the Federal Actions allege violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 14-a9.

"On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and
consolidating the State Actions, captioned Broadcom Shareholder
Cases, JCCP 4834. On September 18, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Central District of California consolidated
the Federal Actions under the caption In re Broadcom Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00979. On September 25,
2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, stayed the State Actions pending the outcome of the
Federal Actions.

"On October 28, 2015, BRCM supplemented its disclosures, and filed
additional proxy materials with the SEC. On November 10, 2015,
BRCM shareholders voted to approve the Broadcom Transaction.

"On November 16, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in the Federal Actions.

"On January 15, 2016, lead plaintiffs in the Federal Actions filed
a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, or the
Federal Consolidated Compliant, which names as defendants, among
other parties, members of BRCM's board of directors and Avago, and
alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those
alleged breaches, as well as violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14-a9.

"On February 1, 2016, we completed the acquisition of BRCM. On
February 16, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Federal Consolidated Complaint."

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


BROADCOM LIMITED: "Varjabedian" Class Action Appeal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2016, that the appeal captioned Gary
Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088,
remains pending.

The Company said, "On April 8, 2015, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al.
v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The
complaint names as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless
and Merger Sub, and purported to assert claims under Sections
14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the board of directors of Emulex failed
to provide material information and/or omitted material
information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex,
together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The complaint
sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs."

"On July 28, 2015, the court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. On
September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money damages, other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 13,
2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint,
which the court granted with prejudice on January 13, 2016.

"Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 15, 2016. The appeal is
captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al.,
No. 16-55088."


BROADCOM LIMITED: Delaware Class Litigation On-Going
----------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2016, that the Delaware class
litigation relating to the acquisition of PLX is on-going.

The Company said, "In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed
in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa
Clara challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the
court consolidated these California actions under the caption In
re PLX Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-
267079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel.
That same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action,
pending resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery."

"Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court
consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880-
VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and
designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On
July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed
the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but
intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-
closing litigation. Our acquisition of PLX closed on August 12,
2014.

"On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, AT Wireless, and
Pluto Merger Sub, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary, aided and
abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege
that PLX's Solicitation/Recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-
9, as filed with the SEC, contained false and misleading
statements and/or omitted material information necessary to inform
the shareholder vote. The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On September 3,
2015, the court granted motions to dismiss filed by AT Wireless,
the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors, and denied
motions to dismiss filed by several other PLX directors, Potomac
Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank Securities.

"The Delaware class litigation is on-going."


BURNER FIRE: Faces "Viator" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE M. VIATOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Docket No. 6:16-cv-1008 Plaintiff, v. BURNER
FIRE CONTROL, INC., Case 6:16-cv-01008 (W.D. La., July 8, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

BURNER FIRE CONTROL, INC. provides industrial fire protection
equipment and specialty oilfield services to various energy
companies. Burner maintains its principal place of business in
Lafayette, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             mparmet@brucknerburch.com

        - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: (713) 751-0025
     Fax: (713) 751-0030
     E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com

        - and -

     Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
     417 W. University Ave.
     P.O. Box 4325
     Lafayette, LA 70502
     Phone: (337) 235-5294
     Fax: (337) 235-1095
     E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com


CARMIKE CINEMAS: Court Denied Bid for Temporary Restraining Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmike Cinemas, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a Court has denied the
plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A,
filed by Carmike Cinemas, Inc. (the "Company") with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 23,
2016, two putative class action complaints (the "Actions") were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Georgia, Columbus Division (the "Court"), against the Company's
directors, AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. ("AMC"), and Congress
Merger Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub") arising from the proposed
acquisition of the Company by AMC pursuant to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of March 3, 2016 by and among the
Company, AMC and Merger Sub (the "Merger").

On June 2, 2016, the plaintiff in the first-filed lawsuit filed a
motion for a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and
a preliminary injunction briefing schedule, seeking, among other
things, to delay the June 30, 2016 stockholder vote on the Merger.

On June 10, 2016, the two putative class action complaints were
consolidated by the Court under the caption In re Carmike Cinemas,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Lead Case No. 4:16-cv-154 (CDL)). By
order dated June 14, 2016, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and a
preliminary injunction briefing schedule, finding that the
plaintiffs were unable to establish that they will suffer
irreparable harm if the stockholder vote is allowed to proceed on
June 30, 2016.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated action have not informed the
Company or the Court whether they intend to pursue their claims
further in light of the Court's denial of the motion. Although it
is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation matters with
certainty, the Company believes that the claims raised in the
Actions are without merit and intends to defend against them
vigorously.


CAYAN LLC: Unanswered Campbell-Ewald Questions Tackled in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Kayatta, Esq. -- kkayatta@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce
Atwood LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that Chief Judge
Saris and Judge Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts recently
tackled questions left unanswered by the Supreme Court's opinion
earlier this year in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663
(2016).

In South Orange Chiropractic Center, LLC v. Cayan LLC, 2016 WL
1441791, No. 15-13069 (D. Mass. April 12, 2016), the defendant,
seeking to slip through the door left ajar by Campbell-Ewald,
sought to deposit $7,500 with the court, providing the named
plaintiff in a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
class action with full relief.  In addition, the defendant agreed
to have judgment entered against it for allegedly sending
plaintiff an unsolicited fax in violation of the TCPA, to pay for
costs, to be enjoined from future conduct as to plaintiff or
others, and to preserve evidence, and presented the plaintiff with
a stand-alone settlement agreement, all of which the plaintiff
rejected.  The defendant then moved to dismiss the plaintiff's
individual claims and to strike the class allegations, arguing
that the plaintiff's individual claims were now moot and plaintiff
could no longer serve as class representative.

Chief Judge Saris, noting that the facts in this case raised
"cutting edge" questions concerning a defendant's ability to pick
off class representatives through Rule 68 offers of judgment,
addressed the specific questions left unanswered by the court in
Campbell-Ewald.  First, if a defendant deposits the full amount of
the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to
plaintiff (or here, with the court), are the plaintiff's
individual claims mooted? Second, if the plaintiff's individual
claims are mooted, does the class action remain justiciable?

The dissenting justices in Campbell-Ewald answered the first
question reserved by the majority, stating that tendering a check
or depositing one with the court moots a plaintiff's individual
claim.  Noting the few decisions issued since Campbell-Ewald on
this question, Chief Judge Saris explained how the district courts
are split, and ultimately concluded that the plaintiff no longer
had a live claim because the defendant had offered to deposit a
check with the court, fully satisfying all of the plaintiff's
individual claims.

Addressing the "harder issue" of whether the "class action
outlives the mooted individual claims," the court relied on
guidance from the First Circuit's "inherently transitory"
exception outlined in Cruz v. Farquharson, 252 F.3d 530 (1st Cir.
2001) and held that the exception applied because class issues
would likely evade review, essentially eviscerating consumer class
actions where there exists a "widespread whack-a-mole practice
aimed at picking off a named plaintiff before class
certification."  In holding that the class action may proceed as a
case or controversy, the court ordered the parties to consider
whether immediate appeal to the First Circuit was appropriate
under 28 U.S.C. Sec 1292(b).

In a subsequent related opinion, South Orange Chiropractic Center,
LLC v. Cayan LLC 2016 WL 3064054, No. 15-13069 (D. Mass. May 31,
2016), the court denied the defendant's motion to certify the
April 12, 2016 order for interlocutory appeal.  Explaining that
"every attempt by a defendant to 'pick-off' the named plaintiff
with hopes of mooting the proposed class action has been rebuffed"
by courts in other circuits, at both the appellate and trial court
levels, the court held there was no substantial ground for a
difference of opinion warranting interlocutory appeal under Sec
1292(b).

A mere nine days later, Judge Sorokin issued an opinion in a non-
TCPA case addressing these same issues but arriving at a different
result.  In Demmler v. ACH Food Companies, Inc., Civ. No. 15-
13556-LTS (D. Mass. June 9, 2016), plaintiffs claimed defendant's
use of the phrase "all natural" on the labels of its barbecue
sauces was unfair and deceptive, and brought claims against the
defendant under the Massachusetts consumer protection statute,
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and under a theory of unjust enrichment.
Accepting the holding of the South Orange opinions, but finding
that key factual differences in the nature of the claims asserted
compelled a different result, the court dismissed both the named
plaintiff's individual claims and the class claims.

Judge Sorokin explained that South Orange relied on "a flock of
TCPA cases" demonstrating a practice aimed at picking off a named
plaintiff before class certification," causing class issues to
evade review and making Cruz's inherently transitory exception
appropriate.  He explained: "While Chief Judge Saris found a
pattern of putative TCPA class action defendants tendering full
relief to named plaintiffs before certification, no such record
exists" for claims under Chapter 93A.  This "key factual
distinction" rendered the inherently transitory exception
inapplicable.

While some defendants initially remained hopeful in the wake of
Campbell-Ewald that certain pick-off attempts might still succeed
in mooting class claims in narrow circumstances, perhaps by
tendering a check to the named plaintiff, the courts in various
jurisdictions have begun further limiting, or altogether shutting
down this possibility.  But just when the South Orange opinions
seemingly slammed the door on Rule 68's tactical utility in
mooting class claims, Demmler has cracked it open again,
suggesting that mootness will be determined on a case-by-case
basis depending on the nature of the claims and the factual
circumstances.  These opinions collectively suggest that while
defendants may not be able to moot class TCPA claims, they might
succeed in doing so for more general consumer protection claims,
and potentially others.  A body of case law on this issue will
surely continue to develop in this District and the First Circuit,
as well as in other jurisdictions, and it will be interesting to
see what inconsistencies arise.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Strauch Plaintiffs File Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended April 1, 2016, that Plaintiffs in the
Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action have filed a
motion for Rule 23 class certification of California, Connecticut
and North Carolina state-law classes.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC
improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the
FLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages and
associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes,
including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No.
4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act.  The
relief sought by plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in
the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil
penalties.

CSC's position is that its system administrators have the job
duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are
properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation
requirements. CSC's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in
February 2015.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more
than 4,000 system administrators. Courts typically undertake a
two-stage review in determining whether a suit may proceed as a
class action under the FLSA. In its order, the Court noted that,
as a first step, the Court examines pleadings and affidavits, and
if it finds that proposed class members are similarly situated,
the class is conditionally certified. Potential class members are
then notified and given an opportunity to opt-in to the action.
The second step of the class certification analysis occurs upon
completion of discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all
evidence then in the record to determine whether there is a
sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed class members are
similarly situated. If it is determined that they are, the case
will proceed to trial; if it is determined they are not, the class
is decertified and only the individual claims of the purported
class representatives proceed.

The Company's position in this litigation continues to be that the
employees identified as belonging to the conditional class were
paid in accordance with the FLSA.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs
and allege violations under Missouri and North Carolina wage and
hour laws. We do not believe these additional claims differ
materially from those in the original complaint. On June 3, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for Rule 23 class certification of
California, Connecticut and North Carolina state-law classes.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in "Luther"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Paul Bishop, Esq. -- kbishop@allenmatkins.com -- of Allen
Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that in Luther v. Countrywide
Financial Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 789 (2011), the trial court
ruled that state courts do not enjoy concurrent jurisdiction when
a class action meeting the definition of a "covered class action"
under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (aka
"SLUSA") did not involve a "covered security", as also defined by
SLUSA (the definitions of both these terms can be found in Section
16(f) of the '33 Act).

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that "an
intent to prevent certain class actions does not tell us that this
class action, or all securities class actions must be brought in
federal court."  Recently, Mr. Bishop noted that the defendants in
a subsequent case have sought review of the question of whether
state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over covered class
actions that allege claims only under the Securities Act of 1933.
Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund et al., S.
Ct. No. 15-1439.

The odds of the Supreme Court actually accepting the petition are
slim (especially since this is a business law issue), the court
generally will not grant certiorari without requesting a response
from the opposing party.  Thus, the petitioners may take some hope
from the fact that the Justices made that request.  Already, two
amici have filed briefs.  The Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
Venture Capital Association have filed a brief supporting review,
arguing:

Allowing securities class actions alleging exclusively federal
securities claims to proceed in state court is an incongruous
result that turns SLUSA on its head.  There can be no rationale
for such a result, and Congress certainly did not intend it.

Eight law professors have also filed an amicus brief also
supporting review.  They point out that despite numerous district
court cases addressing the issue, there are no circuit court
decisions.  Because remand orders are not appealable, it is
unlikely that the issue will be addressed by the federal circuit
courts.


COWAY: Water Purifier Victims to File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Jung Min-hee, writing for Business Korea, reports that controversy
is raging over Coway water purifiers where nickel compounds were
found.  Coway's repeated apologies and compensation proposals are
failing to stop the victims from taking a legal action.

"Over 3,000 victims gathered together at an online Naver cafe in
two days since the cafe was opened on the day when Coway broke the
news that nickel compounds were found in its water purifiers,"
said the Coway victims in a press release.  "We will prepare to
file a law suit against the company by forming alliance with the
Group to Cope with the Coway Case made up of 1,200 members."

Consumers claiming to be the victims of the case are now receiving
legal advice to bring a civil action against the company

Earlier, Coway announced that coating on internal parts of some of
its ice-making water purifiers installed from April 2014 to late
last year wore off, mixing water and ice with impurities such as
nickel.  Coway has decided to withdraw all controversial ice-
making water purifier models regardless of the time of their sales
and refund full rental fees to consumers.


CREDIT CONTROL: "Clancy" Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Paul P. Clancy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Control
Services, Inc. and Steven Sands, and Jeffrey Stoddard, Case No.
600823/2016 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Nassau to the U.S. District Court Eastern District
of New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-03444 to the proceeding.

Credit Control Services, Inc. specializes in credit control for
consumer and commercial businesses.

Paul P Clancy is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Matthew Brady Johnson
      MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
      Wall Street Plaza
      88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 376-6433
      Facsimile: (212) 376-6490
      E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com


DENALI HOLDING: Ruling Expected in 2016 on Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
Denali Holding Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss a securities class action is fully briefed and a ruling
is expected in 2016.

On May 22, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory
damages was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac
Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et. al. (Case No. 1:14-
cv-03644).  The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain
current and former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made
false and misleading statements about Dell's business operations
and products between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The case was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, where the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
The motion is fully briefed and a ruling is expected in 2016. The
defendants believe the claims asserted are without merit and the
risk of material loss is remote.


DENTAL CARE: Faces "Poburski" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Min. Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY POBURSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, 145 S. 2nd Street Coplay, PA 18037 V. DENTAL CARE
ALLIANCE, L.L.C 790 Penllyn Pike Blue Bell, PA 19422; AND GENTLE
DENTAL ALLENTOWN L.L.C. 790 Penllyn Pike Blue Bell, PA 19422, Case
5:16-cv-03740-JLS (E.D. Pa., July 8, 2016), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Dental Care Alliance, LLC provides dental support services to the
dental care organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Murphy, Esq.
     MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
     Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
     1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (267) 273-1054
     Fax: (215) 525-0210
     E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Windom" Suit Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Patches Windom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00491 (E.D.
Ark., July 7, 2016), seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees for failure to pay regular wages and
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as well as for discrimination in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Plaintiff was formerly employed as a Cashier for Dollar Tree at
its retail store located at 3051 East Main Street, Russellville,
Arkansas 72802. Dollar Tree allegedly failed to accommodate
Plaintiff's request for time off from work to attend doctor's and
therapist's appointments for her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Defendant also required Plaintiff to work through their 30 minute
breaks.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Lydia Hicks Hamlet, Esq.
      Sanford Law Firm
      Post Office Box 39
      Russellville, AR 72811
      Tel: (479) 880-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: O&R Construction Seeks Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the case, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.),
has asked the Court to grant preliminary approval of a class
action settlement.

In support of the request, the Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on December
13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In May 2015,
the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC, Credibility. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants violated
the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly
misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The
plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and
equitable relief.

DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The
Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012. On
February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices
allegations.

The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the amended complaint
on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motions
and denied DBCC's motion but granted the Company's motion.
Specifically, the Court dismissed the contract claim against the
Company with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims
against the Company without prejudice.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and
unfair business practices under Washington state law against the
Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports.
The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to
CreditBuilder(R). As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for
negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and
deceptive acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. DBCC
filed a motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014,
the Court heard argument on the defendants' motions. It dismissed
with prejudice the claims against the defendants based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory. The Court denied the Company's
motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair
practices claims.

On January 23, 2014, the defendants answered the SAC. At a court
conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that
it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead
limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington.

On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed
oppositions to the motions for class certification.  On September
16, 2015, plaintiff filed reply briefs in support of the motions
for class certification.

The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve
the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a
written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of
the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order
striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice
and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a
written settlement agreement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Die-Mension Seeks Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the case, Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corp. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.)
(filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)), has asked the Court to
grant preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

In support of the request, the Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February
20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-Mension") filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and DBCC,
purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers
of a CreditBuilder product in the United States or in such
state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC
used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products. As against the Company, the complaint
alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("DTPA"), defamation, and negligence. As against DBCC, the
complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product. On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the
amended complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to
waive service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of
Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order
granting the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22,
2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of
Washington.

Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a
stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. In response, Die-Mension filed a second amended
complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on May 22,
2015, Die-Mension filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants
filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension
filed motions for class certification against the Company and
DBCC.

On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on September 10,
2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss
without prejudice. The parties have since executed a written term
sheet to resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation
and execution of a written settlement agreement and Court
approval.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiate a written settlement agreement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Vinotemp Case Parties Negotiating Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in
the case, Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc.
v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.)), are
negotiating a written settlement agreement.

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and
CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint
alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of
Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint
alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information
on credit reports in violation of Sec.17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and
defamation claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington.

Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a
stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule.
On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.

In response, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13,
2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their
oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June
12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015,
the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss. The parties have since executed a written term sheet
to resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and
execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
and DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice and striking all
upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written
settlement agreement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.

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


DUN & BRADSTREET: In Settlement Talks in Flow Sciences Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No.
7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.)), Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered a Minute
Order on May 6, 2016, indicating that the Court has reviewed the
parties' Joint Status Report, docket no. 140 in Case No. C14-855.
The Status Report said the parties are still engaged in settlement
negotiations, the deadline set forth in the Minute Order entered
in each case on October 30, 2015, for the parties to file either a
motion for preliminary approval of their settlement or, if no
settlement is reached, a joint status report indicating when a new
trial date should be set, was extended to May 17, 2016.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on June 13,
2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and DBCC.
Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of
DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive
practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In
addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence
and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint
and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina
court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014,
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a
stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In response, Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint
on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science
filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply
briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed
motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On
September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying
the Company's motion to dismiss and on October 19, 2015, it
entered an order denying DBCC's motion to dismiss. The parties
have since executed a written term sheet to resolve the action,
which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a written
settlement agreement and Court approval.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiate a written settlement agreement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: In Settlement Talks in "Altaflo" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp.,
et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-
cv-03961 (D.N.J.)), Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered a Minute Order
on May 6, 2016, indicating that the Court has reviewed the
parties' Joint Status Report, docket no. 140 in Case No. C14-855.
The Status Report said the parties are still engaged in settlement
negotiations, the deadline set forth in the Minute Order entered
in each case on October 30, 2015, for the parties to file either a
motion for preliminary approval of their settlement or, if no
settlement is reached, a joint status report indicating when a new
trial date should be set, was extended to May 17, 2016.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on June 20,
2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo purports to sue on
behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the
state of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company and
DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale
of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq.
In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges
negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges
negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.

On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the
Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Altaflo filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3,
2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint,
and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed its oppositions to the motions.
Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015.

On July 17, 2015, Altaflo filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington
court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss,
and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's
motion to dismiss without prejudice. The parties have since
executed a written term sheet to resolve the action, which is
subject to the negotiation and execution of a written settlement
agreement and Court approval.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiate a written settlement agreement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Has Commenced in "Thomas" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery has
commenced and the Court has issued a schedule for amended
pleadings, discovery, the filing of any class certification motion
and trial in the case, Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corp., No. 2:15 cv 03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal.).

On April 28, 2015, Jeffrey A. Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed suit
against DBCC in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (47 U.S.C. Sec.
227) because it placed telephone calls to Plaintiff's cell phone
using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). The TCPA
generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell
phone for non-emergency purposes and without the prior express
written consent of the called party.  The TCPA provides for
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to
$1,500 per violation at the discretion of the court if the
plaintiff proves the defendant willfully violated the TCPA.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals who received calls on their cell phones from an ATDS.
DBCC was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April
30, 2015. On May 22, 2015, the Company made a statutory offer of
judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer. DBCC filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on June 12, 2015, which the Court
denied on August 5, 2015. DBCC filed an Answer and asserted its
Affirmative Defenses on November 12, 2015.

Discovery has commenced and the Court has issued a schedule for
amended pleadings, discovery, the filing of any class
certification motion and trial. The Company is continuing to
investigate the Complaint's allegations.


DUPONT CO: Liability Exposure to Rise Following Mass Tort Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Law Weekly, reports that
DuPont Co. saw its exposure to liability seem to grow in the wake
of a bellwether mass tort case, as it faces a sea of lawsuits
related to its dumping of chemically tainted water into the Ohio
River, after a federal jury in Ohio this week awarded $5.1 million
in compensatory damages to a man who developed cancer.

On July 6, a seven-member jury found the Wilmington, Delaware-
based chemical company acted with malice when it discharged the
chemical C8 into the river, near its Washington Works plant in
West Virginia.  The same jury on July 7 ordered DuPont to pay an
additional $500,000 in punitive damages to the plaintiff,
David Freeman.

The chemical, also known as PFOA, was used to make Teflon and has
been linked in recent years to a range of diseases, including
cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension and ulcerative colitis.
The verdict came in one of six bellwether cases being used to test
the strength of some 3,500 lawsuits pending against the company,
all related to the same conduct.  The cases have been consolidated
into multidistrict litigation in Ohio federal court.
The first bellwether plaintiff, Clara Bartlett, was awarded $1.6
million in compensatory damages in October.  That verdict is
currently under appeal.

A second case was settled earlier this year for an undisclosed
amount, and two other bellwether cases are set to go to trial in
late August and mid-November.  The plaintiffs in both of those
cases also say the chemical-infused water caused them to develop
cancer.

Of the 3,500 pending cases, 75 percent allege personal injury
claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease, and
10 percent involve claims that C8 in drinking water caused cancer,
according to DuPont's latest quarterly filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company estimates that 30 of the pending lawsuits allege
wrongful death.

DuPont has denied all allegations against it and has vowed to
"vigorously defend" itself against the claims.
Still, this week's verdicts were an indication that DuPont will
face mounting pressure to settle cases in an ordeal that has
already cost it significantly.

"The compensatories are substantial," said Daniel Berger --
danberger@bm.net -- managing shareholder at the Philadelphia-
headquartered firm Berger & Montague.  "The momentum, the
advantage, the leverage shifts to the plaintiffs," he said.

In 2001, DuPont reached a settlement with 80,000 residents near
the Washington Works plant that resulted in a $70 million payment
to class members and a $23 million charge for attorneys fees. And
a scientific panel determined in 2013 that DuPont must fund up to
$235 million in medical monitoring, in addition to administrative
costs and legal fees.

The company is also subject to environmental laws and regulations
that would require it to undertake investigative, remediation and
restoration efforts in the affected area.

As of March 31, the company had set aside $492 million to deal
with environmental contingencies, which it said could require
payments over the course of 15 to 20 years.  But DuPont's
potential liability could increase to more than $1 billion over
that amount, the company said in its SEC filing.

DuPont has said that it is seeking reimbursement for damages and
environmental penalties from Chemours, which gained control of the
Washington Works plant in a spinoff from DuPont last year.


EASTERN PLATINUM: Shareholder's Bid to Commence Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivana Nenadic, Esq. -- INenadic@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in Bradley
v. Eastern Platinum Ltd., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
denied the plaintiff leave to commence a class action under the
Securities Act, affirming the requirement established in s. 138.8
of the Act, pursuant to which the plaintiff must establish a
"reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved in the
plaintiff's favor."

The court examined the case law in securities legislation in
Quebec and Ontario, citing Dugal v. Manulife Financial Corp., in
which Justice Belobaba wrote that the test requires "not just a
triable issue but a seriously arguable claim."

The applicant in the action had purchased shares of the respondent
corporation, which are listed on several stock exchanges,
including the TSX.  He commenced the application initially
alleging that a complete or partial shutdown of the respondent's
mining operation was a material change that required disclosure
and, subsequently, that the reduction in production in the first
quarter of 2011 was the result of a change in mine roof support
methods, which also required disclosure.  The Court wrote that the
bar for obtaining leave is not low and although it is not a motion
for summary judgment, there are parallels as both require the
weighing of evidence. Ultimately, the Court found that there is no
reasonable prospect of success at trial.  It is worth noting that
the test for leave under the Securities Act was found by the Court
of Appeal to be the same as that for certification in s. 5(i)(a)
of the Class Proceedings Act and
Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.


EAT-PISODE: Faces "Cano" Suit Alleging FLSA, NY Labor Law Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL VENEGAS CANO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. EAT-PISODE INC. (d/b/a HI THAI), and
TATWARA SUPOLCHAI, Case 1:16-cv-05477-VEC (S.D.N.Y., July 8,
2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Hi Thai is a Restaurant owned by Tatwara Supolchai.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMMANUEL VERSCHUEREN: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
GUADALUPE ROSARIO DIMAS MARTINEZ, v. EMMANUEL VERSCHUEREN, Case
1:16-cv-22999-DPG (S.D.Fla., July 11, 2016), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees for Defendant's alleged willful violations of
minimum wage pay under the laws of the United States and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Emmanuel Verschueren is the owner of Bistro BE, a 100% Belgian
restaurant in Miami.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Phone: (305) 308 - 5619
     E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone: (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


ENTERPRISE FLEET: "Hamilton" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hamilton, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Enterprise Fleet Management, Inc., and
DOES 1- 50, the Defendant, Case No. BC626021 (Cal. Super. Ct. July
6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff also brings this action for equitable relief,
injunctive, and declaratory relief. Specifically, the Plaintiff
challenges Defendants alleged failure to timely pay full wages
upon separation, termination or resignation.

Enterprise Fleet provides fleet management services for businesses
with mid-sized fleets in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500 8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500 8781
          E-mail: Christopher.ridout@zimmereed.com


EXELON CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation and Pepco Holdings LLC said in their Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June
10, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have executed
a Stipulation of Settlement to resolve all claims, subject to the
approval of the Delaware Court.

This Form 8-K is being filed pursuant to the June 1, 2016 Order of
the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Court") that, among
other things, schedules a hearing regarding approval of the
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation" or "Settlement") relating
to In re Pepco Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated
C.A. No. 9600-VCG (Del. Ch.), and that orders the Stipulation and
the Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action, Proposed Settlement Of
Class Action, Settlement Hearing, And Right to Appear ("Notice")
be filed in a Form 8-K. The litigation relates to the Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 18, 2014
(the "Merger Agreement"), among Pepco Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Pepco Holdings" or "PHI"), Exelon Corporation, a
Pennsylvania corporation ("Exelon"), and Purple Acquisition Corp.,
a Delaware corporation and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Exelon ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with
and into Pepco Holdings (the "Merger"), with Pepco Holdings
surviving the Merger as an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Exelon. Following the closing of the Merger, Pepco Holdings was
converted into a Delaware limited liability company. The
litigation alleged that individual directors of PHI breached their
fiduciary duties by entering into the merger transaction and
Exelon aided and abetted the individual directors' breaches. The
litigation sought to enjoin PHI from completing the merger or seek
rescission of the merger if completed. In addition, the litigation
also sought unspecified damages and costs. In September 2014, the
parties reached an agreement-in-principle regarding a proposed
settlement of the litigation. On June 1, 2016, the parties
executed the Stipulation to resolve all claims, subject to the
approval of the Delaware Court.

The case is, in re Pepco Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 9600-VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

A copy of the Stipulation, together with its exhibits, is
available at https://goo.gl/DYixmK

A copy of the Notice is available at https://goo.gl/OlcxbI


FCA US: Faces "Weber" Suit Over Defect in Gearshift of Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY WEBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. FCA US LLC, 2:16-cv-12574-RHC-SDD (E.D. Mich., July
8, 2016), alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and
concealment by Defendants of a known defect on its 2012-2014
Chrysler 300, 2012-2014 Dodge Ram, 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee,
2014 Maserati Quattroporte or 2014 Maserati Ghibli equipped with a
monostable electronic gearshift supplied by ZF Friedrichshaffen
AG.

FCA is a member of the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. family of
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
     Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ, MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
             mtroutner@ktmc.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customer Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.,
Ferrellgas, L.P. and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that
Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor,
in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions.
The lawsuits allege that Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated
in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and
combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill
reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the
putative class. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one
case by a multidistrict litigation panel.  The Court has dismissed
all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other than
state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont law.  The direct customer plaintiffs have filed an appeal,
which is pending.  Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses to
the claims and intends to vigorously defend against the
consolidated case. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or
reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class
action lawsuit.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Wins Dismissal of Propane Tank Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.,
Ferrellgas, L.P. and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that
putative class action cases have been filed in California relating
to residual propane remaining in the tank after use.  Ferrellgas
has prevailed at the trial court on a motion to dismiss those
claims.  It is uncertain whether plaintiffs will appeal;
Ferrellgas intends to vigorously defend any such appeal.
Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.


FINANCE OF AMERICA: "Christopher" Suit Claims FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL CHRISTOPHER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. FINANCE OF AMERICA, MORTGAGE, LLC, Case: 1:16-cv-07122
(N.D. Ill., July 11, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Act, and the Illinois Wage
Payment Collection Act.

Finance of America Mortgage, LLC offers a wide variety of home
loans, with fixed rate or adjustable rate mortgages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Terrence Buehler, Esq.
     GABRIEL CHRISTOPHER
     17 W 220 22nd Street Suite 410
     Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
     Phone: (331) 225-2123

        - and -

     Peter Lubin, Esq.
     Vincent DiTommaso, Esq.
     DiTommaso Lubin, Esq.
     DITOMMASO LUBIN P.C.
     The Oak Brook Terrace Atrium
     17W220 22d Street, Suite 200
     Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181


FIRSTMERIT CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in S'holder Litig.
-------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2016, that the
Company, each of its directors and Huntington Bancshares
Incorporated on June 7, 2016, reached an agreement in principle
regarding the settlement of a putative consolidated class action
captioned In re FirstMerit Corp. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No.
5:16-cv-00461 (the "Actions"), pending before the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Court").

The Actions relate to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of January 25, 2016, by and among Huntington, FirstMerit and West
Subsidiary Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement in
principle, FirstMerit and Huntington agreed to make available
additional information to the shareholders of FirstMerit and
Huntington. The additional information is contained in the
supplement (the "Supplement") to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus of Huntington and FirstMerit, dated April 29,
2016 (the "Joint Proxy Statement") attached as Exhibit 99.1
hereto. The Supplement should be read in conjunction with the
Joint Proxy Statement and the documents incorporated by reference
therein.

FirstMerit, Huntington and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations made by plaintiffs in the Actions and believe the
disclosures in the Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the
law. Nevertheless, FirstMerit, Huntington and the other defendants
have agreed to settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs,
disruption, and distraction of further litigation.


FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in Class Action Lawsuit Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company's appeal
from a court's decision is pending.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in
which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996
conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a
cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed
to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of
the conversion. Plaintiff's claims were for breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, and violation of the statutory provisions governing the
content of the Summary Plan Description.

The trial was held in July 2015 and the court issued a decision in
September 2015 in favor of the class on the foregoing claims. The
court ordered that the Plan be reformed. The Company is appealing
the court's decision, and the judgment has been stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.

As a result of this development, the Company determined that it is
probable a liability exists. The Company's reasonable estimate of
this liability is a range between $100 million and $200 million,
with no amount within that range more probable than any other
amount. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company
recorded a charge of $100 million pre-tax ($61 million after-tax)
in the third quarter of 2015. This amount has been classified as a
long-term liability. The Company will continue to vigorously
defend itself in this case. In light of the uncertainties involved
in this matter, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution
will not differ from the amount currently accrued by the Company.


GENESCO INC: To Defend Against New Jersey Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that plaintiffs filed on
April 22, 2016, and May 19, 2016, putative class actions (Nahas v.
Hatworld, Inc., Murray v. Genesco Inc., and Rando v. Hatworld,
Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey alleging that
certain provisions of the Company's terms and conditions on its
e-commerce websites violate the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act and seeking statutory penalties
and attorneys fees. The Company disputes the basis of the claims
asserted in these actions and intends to defend them.

Genesco Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company")
business includes the sourcing and design, marketing and
distribution of footwear and accessories through retail stores in
the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada primarily under the Journeys,
Journeys Kidz, Shi by Journeys, Little Burgundy, Underground by
Journeys and Johnston & Murphy banners and under the Schuh banner
in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Germany;
through e-commerce websites including the following: journeys.com,
journeyskidz.com, shibyjourneys.com, schuh.co.uk,
littleburgundyshoes.com, johnstonmurphy.com and trask.com and
catalogs, and at wholesale, primarily under the Company's Johnston
& Murphy brand, the Trask brand, the licensed Dockers brand and
other brands that the Company licenses for footwear, and the
Company's SureGrip(R) line of slip-resistant, occupational
footwear. The Company's business also includes Lids Sports Group,
which operates headwear and accessory stores in the U.S. and
Canada primarily under the Lids banner; the Lids Locker Room and
Lids Clubhouse businesses, consisting of sports-oriented fan shops
featuring a broad array of licensed merchandise such as apparel,
hats and accessories, sports decor and novelty products, operating
under various trade names; licensed team merchandise departments
in Macy's department stores operated under the name Locker Room by
Lids and on macys.com, under a license agreement with Macy's;
certain e-commerce operations including lids.com, lids.ca,
lidslockerroom.com and lidsclubhouse.com and shop.neweracap.com.
Including both the footwear businesses and the Lids Sports Group
business, at April 30, 2016, the Company operated 2,833 retail
stores and leased departments in the U.S., Puerto Rico, Canada,
the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Germany.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces Va. Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Clinton and Helen Kaplan, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHER Persons similarly situated v. Government Employees Insurance
Company a/k/a GEICO, Case 2:16-cv-00430-AWA-LRL (E.D.Va., July 11,
2016), seeks declaratory relief, and recovery of alleged unpaid
overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is a major national insurance company and, as stated
on its website, the second largest private passenger auto
insurance company in the United States, providing insurance
coverage to over 22 million vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Reid H. Ervin, Esq.
     Joshua L. Jewett, Esq.
     Brittany M. Wrigley, Esq.
     REID H. ERVIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     2400 Dominion Tower
     999 Waterside Drive
     Norfolk, VA 23510
     Phone: (757) 624-9323
     Fax: (757) 624-8414
     E-mail: rhervin@reidervin.com
             jjewett@reidervin.com
             bvyrigley@reidervin.com

        - and -

     Harris D. Butler, Esq.
     Zev H. Antell, Esq.
     BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
     140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Phone: (804) 648-4848
     Fax: (804) 237-0413
     E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
             zev.antell@butlerroyals.com


GRIFFIN LANDSCAPING: "Najera" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Najera, individually and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Griffin Landscaping
Company and John Griffin, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-07029 (N.D. Ill., July 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages for hours worked
more than forty hours in a week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Susan J. Best, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Tel: 312-878-1263
     Email: sbest@yourclg.com


HCP INC: "Ji-Yong" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
Ji-Yong Ryu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HCP, Inc., HCR Manorcare, Inc., Lauralee
Martin, Timothy Schoen, Paul A. Ormond and Steven M. Cavanaugh,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04981 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2016), seeks
award of compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred including attorneys' fees and expert fees and such
equitable, injunctive, or other further relief for violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

HCP is a real estate investment trust focused on the healthcare
industry. HCP holds a 10% equity stake in ManorCare, a nursing
home operator which also happens to be HCP's most significant
client.

ManorCare was allegedly engaged in rampant billing fraud, which
allegedly generated over $6 billion dollars in false claims for
reimbursement submitted to government programs and systematically
forcing patients to remain in therapy for longer than necessary
and subjected patients to unnecessary, unreasonable and even
harmful treatment. HCP's stock declined by 1.1% in response to
these disclosures.

Plaintiff acquired HCP securities at artificially inflated prices
and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (818) 532-6499
     Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

            - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Marc Gorrie, Esq.
     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


HIH INSURANCE: Courts Ease Way for Shareholder Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Damian Grave, Esq. -- damian.grave@hsf.com -- Helen Mould, Esq. --
helen.mould@hsf.com -- at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reports that directors and officers of
listed companies are acutely aware of the class action risks posed
by corporate continuous disclosure obligations.

A securities class action may be commenced if shareholders allege
that a company's disclosure (or failure to disclose) breached the
Corporations Act or the ASIC Act.  To recover damages in this type
of claim, a shareholder plaintiff must prove that the
contravention caused their loss -- a concept known as causation.

What is required in order to prove causation has been the subject
of significant debate.

In Australia, courts have traditionally found that where a
misrepresentation has induced a transaction (including a share
transaction) the plaintiff must show that they relied on the
misrepresentation in order to establish causation.

On April 20, 2016, In the matter of HIH Insurance Limited (in
liquidation) & Ors [2016] NSWSC 482, the NSW Supreme Court held
that the plaintiffs:

   -- could establish causation by showing that they purchased
shares on the market at an inflated price, and

   -- did not need to establish that they relied on the
misrepresentation in order to recover loss (direct reliance).  It
was enough that the market relied on, and was misled by, the
misrepresentation (indirect market based causation).
This is the first time an Australian court has applied indirect
market based causation.

The plaintiffs were investors who acquired shares in HIH Insurance
Limited.  The investors claimed that HIH's 1999 and 2000 financial
results contained misleading or deceptive representations.  HIH
admitted that it had contravened the former Trade Practices Act
1974 and Corporations Law by releasing the results.

When HIH entered liquidation, the investors lodged proofs of debt
stating that they had suffered loss and damage by paying more for
their shares than they would have, had the market price not been
inflated.  The liquidators did not admit their proofs and the
investors appealed to the NSW Supreme Court.

The investors did not seek to argue that they read or directly
relied on the financial results.  Instead, they argued that they
purchased the shares in a market regulated by the ASX and the
Corporations Law and that this market was distorted by the
misrepresentations in the results.

Although the decision relates to a liquidation proceeding and not
a class action, the judgment will be relevant to the issues
considered in securities class actions.

The decision has not been appealed.  Plaintiffs and defendants
alike will wait to see if this decision is followed by other
courts.  In the interim, questions remain as to whether indirect
market based causation supports the objectives of the continuous
disclosure regime, which include encouraging investors to read and
consider corporate disclosures.

Debate will also continue as to how it is proven that the market
price was in fact inflated because of the alleged contraventions.


HSBC FINANCE: Settled Jaffe v. Household Suit for $1.575-Bil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2016, that HSBC
Finance Corporation announced a resolution to a 14-year
shareholder class action based on events that took place prior to
HSBC's acquisition of Household International Inc. in 2003. HSBC
Finance agreed to pay US$1.575 billion to settle all claims in
Jaffe v. Household International. The settlement is subject to
court approval and is expected to result in a pretax charge to
HSBC Finance of approximately US$585 million, including legal fees
and expenses, in the second quarter of 2016.


IRCOPOL FINANCIAL: Sued Over Relabeled Nutritional Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN R. PODGORSKI and LYDIA PODGORSKI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. IRCOPOL
FINANCIAL ADVICE, INC. d/b/a Metamorfoza Health Studio Human &
Nature and d/b/a Heaven in my Mouth; and IRENEUSZ S. BROZ, the
Defendant, Case No. 2016-CH-08897 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 6, 2016),
seeks to recover injunctive relief, actual damages, consequential
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs caused by
Defendants' unfair and deceptive acts, including relabeling
branded nutritional supplements as their own and charging
consumers several times the retail price of those supplements, in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

The Defendants also misrepresented to consumers that Broz is a
licensed dietician, thus illegally gaining the trust of "patients"
and duping them out of consultation, testing and supplement
charges.

Ircopol Financial is in the nutritional supplement marketing and
sales business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul F. Markoff, Esq.
          Karl G. Leinberger, Esq.
          MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC
          134 N LaSalle St Ste 1050
          Chicago IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726 4162
          Facsimile: (312) 674 7272


IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Morgan" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROCK MORGAN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED, IRON MOUNTAIN SECURE
SHREDDING, INC., IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., and IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case 1:16-cv-
00300 (E.D. Tenn., July 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid and
underpaid overtime wages pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Iron Mountain Incorporated provides data backup, records
management, and secure shredding to businesses throughout the
United States, including multiple locations in Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David W. Garrison, Esq.
     Scott P. Tift, Esq.
     Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
     BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
     Bank of America Plaza
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: (615) 244-2202
     Fax: (615) 252-3798
     E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             stift@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

        - and -

     Emma A. Flynn, Esq.
     BERKE, BERKE & BERKE
     420 Frazier Avenue
     Post Office Box 4747
     Chattanooga, TN 37405
     Phone: (423) 266-5171
     Fax: (423) 265-5307
     E-mail: emma@berkeattys.com


ISRAEL: Court Refuses Request to Remove PM from Oil Spill Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zafrir Rinat, writing for Haaretz, reports that a court has
rejected the state's request to remove the prime minister from the
list of defendants in a lawsuit over a massive oil spill in the
Evrona nature reserve some 18 months ago.

When the spill occurred at the southern Israel site in December
2014, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was also serving as
finance minister.  The suit argues that the Finance Ministry is
responsible for the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC) --
whose leaky pipeline was the source of the spill -- and that
responsibility rests in particular with the then-finance minister
and the ministry's accountant general, Michal Abadi-Boiangiu.

In her ruling on July 5, Be'er Sheva District Court Judge
Rachel Lavi-Barkai also refused to reject out of hand the class-
action suit, which was filed by several residents of the area near
Evrona.

"It can't be said at this stage, based on what is alleged in the
suit, that the plaintiffs haven't provided grounds for a suit
against the state, the finance minister and the accountant
general, given the possibility that they were controlling
shareholders of or officials at EAPC," she wrote.

The five million liters of oil that leaked from the EAPC pipeline
was one of the worst cases of pollution in Israel's history.
The state had argued that the suit should be thrown out because
it's unreasonable to sue the state or its officials for damage
caused by a third party, i.e. EAPC.  But the plaintiffs' lawyers
argued that the finance minister and accountant general are
directly responsible for EAPC and manage it de facto.

EAPC was established in the 1960s as a joint venture between the
governments of Israel and Iran, mainly to transport Iranian oil
from the port of Eilat to refineries elsewhere in Israel.  After
the 1979 Iranian revolution, the joint venture ceased and EAPC
remained under the Israeli government's control.  Iran
subsequently sought reimbursement for its share of EAPC's assets
via international arbitration.  Because of the sensitivity of that
case, which has been going on for years, almost all information
about EAPC is classified.

Consequently, the state has refused to divulge any information
about the role of specific government officials in running the
company and has also asked that the entire suit be heard in camera
-- a request the plaintiffs oppose.

Judge Lavi-Barkai said it was this lack of information that made
it impossible for her to decide at this stage that the suit is
groundless.


JOE'S COMPLETE: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging Violations of Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE MALDONADO, JONATHAN BARAHONA MAURICIO DIAZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOE'S COMPLETE TREE
SERVICE, INC., and JOSEPH S. MASSARO JR., an individual, CV16-3848
(E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2016), seeks to recover damages for alleged
egregious violations by the Defendants of state and federal wage
and hour laws of Federal and New York State labor laws.

JOE'S COMPLETE TREE SERVICE, INC. offers tree trimming and tree
removal services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Puja Sharma, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C
     69-12 Austin Street
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Phone: 718-263-9591


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Lawsuit in New York Over RICO "Violations"
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE BEHRENS, KATHLEEN BEHRENS, SHERRY SCHEFFERT AND DAVID
SCHEFFERT, RICHARD WAKEFORD on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., U.S. BANK, N.A.,
CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. MILLENIUM TRUST COMPANY a/kla
MILLENIUM TRUST CO. LLC, RUSSELL WASENDORF,. RUSSELL WASENDORF,
JR. STEVEN BREWER a/k/a STEVEN JOHN BREWER, GARLON MAXWELL, AMBER
MAXWELL, PERRY COMEAU, John Does #1-40, Case 1:16-cv-05508
(S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2016), was filed purportedly on behalf of
individuals or businesses who held accounts at Peregrine Financial
prior to July, 2012, for alleged violation of the Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Statute.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a nationally chartered bank that is
organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of
business in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Susan Levy, Esq.
     40 East 10th Street, Suite 2K
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: 212-962-1782
     Fax: 212-962-3711
     E-mail: Susanjlevy@aol.com


JVZ INVESTMENT: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diego Gonzalez individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JVZ Investment, Inc., Win You,
Inc., and Vinyu Tosakulwong, individually, Defendants, Case No
1:16-cv-07105 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2016), was filed under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate Jaiyen Sushi & Noodle and Jaiyen Fusion
Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: (312) 878-1302
     E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action in U.S. Over Engine Failures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ross McLaughlin and Carly Yoshida, writing for CTV Vancouver,
report that Kia is being sued over engine failures in the U.S. and
has responded by offering extended warranties on some Kia Optimas
in both the U.S. and Canada.

A class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. alleges some models of
Kia's Optima, Sportage, and Sorento vehicles have a defect that
could cause "catastrophic engine failure."

The lawyer representing the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit,
Matthew Schelkopf, claims the failing engines are the same ones
that were used in Hyundai Sonatas that were recalled last year.

"In the Hyundai case, what we were able to do is get the warranty
extended but then also individuals who experience the engine
failure got reimbursed for any out of pocket repairs," said
Mr. Schelkopf.

The lawsuit was filed against Kia on June 2.  Eight days later,
Kia sent a letter to Optima owners in the U.S. extending the
warranty on all 2011 to 2014 models with 2.4-litre or 2.0-litre
GDI engines.

Kia has not filed a response to the lawsuit, but in a statement to
CTV News, Kia Motors America admitted the Optima engines were
experiencing piston connection rod damage issues and that it may
impact owners not covered by warranty, so Kia extended it to 10
years or 100,000 miles.  The extended warranty applies to both new
and used Optima owners.

Mr. Schelkopf says he's started to hear from Canadians having
similar engine issues.

"We've been contacted by a number of people from Canada so we're
going through now with that investigation to determine the
supplier of these engines," said Mr. Schelkopf.

Transport Canada says Kias sold in Canada have engines made in
Korea and not in the U.S, but Kia Canada has since offered the
same warranty extension of 10 years or 200,000 km to some Kia
Optima owners in Canada.  Kia has not admitted to a problem with
their engines in Canada but says the extension has been offered to
"minimize confusion" to Canadian customers.

However, a Vancouver man was left stranded with no coverage for
his used 2011 Kia Optima when it broke down in April, just one
month after he bought it.

It had only about 50,000 km on it, and even though Mitch Parmar's
car was under warranty, Kia wouldn't cover him because the company
said service records didn't exist for the first 17,000 km when he
didn't own the vehicle.

Kia Canada attributed the engine failure to low oil levels as a
result of lack of scheduled maintenance.  But George Iny with the
Canadian Automotive Protection Association doesn't believe that's
what caused the failure.

"It's not true that it's related to an oil change that you missed
50,000 km ago.  It could happen in other situations as well," he
said.  Mr. Iny believes Mr. Parmar's issue is related to what is
happening with seized engines in the U.S.

"It's possible that they would develop the same flaws or come from
the factory with the same weaknesses," said Mr. Iny.

As for Mr. Parmar's Kia Optima, the Ford dealer who originally
sold him the car took it back and put him into a newer Mustang.
Kia Canada says it's preparing a letter to send out to Kia Optima
owners about the warranty extension and the reasons behind it. The
company told CTV News that the notices are to be mailed at the end
of July.

Kia did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the
lawsuit and the allegations about other models, and the company is
not admitting to any issues in Canada.


KRISPY KREME: Class Action Filed Challenging Merger
---------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended May 1, 2016, that a putative class
action complaint challenging the Merger was filed in Superior
Court in North Carolina.

On May 8, 2016, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Cotton Parent, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Cotton"), Cotton Merger Sub Inc., a North Carolina
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cotton ("Merger
Sub"), and JAB Holdings B.V. a Dutch Besloten Vennootschap met
beperkte aansprakelijkheid (private company with limited
liability) ("JAB"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement and subject
to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth therein,
Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving company and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Cotton (the "Merger"). The closing of the Merger is
subject to certain conditions, including (i) the approval of the
Merger by our shareholders, (ii) the expiration or termination of
applicable waiting periods under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, (iii) there being no
material adverse effect on the Company prior to the closing of the
Merger and (vi) other customary conditions. On May 31, 2016, we
filed a preliminary proxy statement in connection with a special
meeting of our shareholders to seek approval of the Merger.
Additional information about the Merger Agreement is set forth in
the Company's current Report on Form 8-K filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 9,
2016. Unless stated otherwise, the forward-looking information
contained in this report does not take into account or give any
effect to the impact of the proposed Merger.

On May 26, a putative class action complaint challenging the
Merger was filed in Superior Court in the State of North Carolina
and a letter was received from lawyers representing a separate
alleged shareholder demanding legal action against the Board for a
purported breach of fiduciary duty related to the Merger. On June
8, 2016, a second letter was received from lawyers representing
yet another alleged shareholder demanding action from the Board
related to purported breaches of fiduciary duties and the duties
of care, candor and good faith.


LENDING CLUB: "Mitchell" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Mitchell, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Lending Club Corporation, Case No 1:16-cv-00053 (M.D. Tenn.,
July 8, 2016), alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant purports to be "the world's largest online credit
marketplace, facilitating personal loans, business loans, and
financing for elective medical procedures," headquartered in San
Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul Guibao, Esq.
     GUIBAO LAW OFFICE
     1448 Madison Avenue
     Memphis, TN 38104
     Phone: (901) 274-5400
     Fax: (901) 274-5111
     E-mail: pguibao@gmail.com


LIPOCINE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on July 7 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
individuals who purchased Lipocine Inc. securities between
February 27, 2015 and June 28, 2016, inclusive.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you have until
August 30, 2016 to move the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 310-201-9150, or at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company
improperly designed and implemented its NDA for LPCN 1021; (2)
that, as a result, the FDA would deny or delay approval of the
Company's lead product candidate; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's future revenues and viability would be
jeopardized; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements, as well as Defendants' statements
about Lipocine's business, operations, and prospects, were false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Lipocine during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than August 30, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish
to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at
(310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at http://www.glancylaw.com


LNN INC: Faces "Esparza" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Esparza individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, v. LNN, Inc., MNN, Inc., Wing Brothers, Inc.,
Michael Nardello, and Nick Nardello, individually, Case: 1:16-cv-
07146 (N.D. Ill., July 11, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate three Wingstop Restaurants in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-878-1302
     E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Conference in "Gathmann-Landini" Adjourned
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Gathmann-Landini et al v. Lululemon USA
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06867 (E.D.N.Y.), are briefing a motion to
dismiss, and the initial conference scheduled for June 27, 2016,
has been adjourned without date.  The adjournment was ordered by
Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on June 23.

lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2016, that on October 9, 2015,
certain current and former hourly employees of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York entitled
Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On December
2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company violated various New York labor codes by failing to pay
all earned wages, including overtime compensation. The plaintiffs
are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The Company intends
to vigorously defend this matter.


MDL 2627: Fact Discovery Closed, Expert Discovery Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that fact discovery
has closed and expert discovery is now proceeding in the case, IN
RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 1:15md2627 (AJT/TRJ)(E.D. Va.).  The case is assigned to the
Hon. Anthony J. Trenga and the Hon. T. Rawles Jones.

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class
action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts
and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde
emissions from the Company's flooring products (collectively, the
"Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various
actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which
although not identical are generally similar, including
negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act
violations, state unfair competition act violations, state
deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising,
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to
warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes
consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers
that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The
plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief and various damages, including restitution, actual,
compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive
damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the
plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with
the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class
actions. Plaintiffs had not quantified damages sought from the
Company in these class actions.

On June 12, 2015, United States Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order transferring and
consolidating ten of the related federal class actions to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(the "Virginia Court"). In a series of subsequent conditional
transfer orders, the MDL Panel has transferred the other cases to
the Virginia Court. The Company continues to seek to have any
newly filed cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia
Court and ultimately, the Company expects all federal class
actions involving formaldehyde allegations, including any newly
filed cases, to be transferred and consolidated in the Virginia
Court. The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In
re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation.

Pursuant to a court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class
Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The
complaint challenged the Company's labeling of its flooring
products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois,
Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of
consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and
declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied
warranty under California law. Thereafter, on September 18, 2015,
plaintiffs filed the First Amended Representative Class Action
Complaint ("FARC") in which they added implied warranty claims
under New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law, as well as a
federal warranty claim. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and
answered the FARC. The Virginia Court granted the motion as to
claims for negligent misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain
plaintiffs, deferred as to class action allegations, and otherwise
denied the motion. The Company also filed a motion to strike
nationwide class allegations, on which the Virginia Court has not
yet ruled. The Company also filed a motion to strike all personal
injury claims made in class action complaints. Plaintiffs
subsequently agreed and the Virginia Court has ordered that no
Chinese formaldehyde class action pending in this lawsuit will
seek damages for personal injury on a class-wide basis. The order
does not affect any claims for personal injury brought solely on
an individual basis. Fact discovery has closed and expert
discovery is now proceeding in this matter.


MEREDITH CORP: Faces "Jager" Suit Over More Magazine Distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN JAGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MEREDITH CORPORATION, an Iowa corporation, Case:
4:16-cv-01119, (E.D. Mo., July 8, 2016), was filed on behalf of
all similarly situated persons who purchased subscriptions to More
magazine and allegedly failed to receive issues for the duration
of their subscription or a refund from Meredith Corporation after
it ceased publishing More magazine.

Defendant Meredith Corporation is a print and digital media
company in the business of publishing and selling magazines.
Defendant markets several publications including More magazine and
Better Homes and Gardens.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
     MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
     2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
     Redlands, CA 92374
     Phone: (909) 557-1250
     Fax: (909) 557-1275
     E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com

        - and -

     Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
     Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
     Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
     MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (610) 200-0580
     E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
             mds@mccunewright.com
             jbk@mccunewright.com


MIAMI TERMINAL: "Valverde" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Humberto Perez Valverde, Walter Alexander Gonzalez Gomez,
Manuel De Jesus Lopez Rivera, William Alberto Midence Ordonez,
Geronimo Fernando Parrales Chevez, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Miami Terminal Cold Storage, LLC, Lee E.
Sigler and Deborah M. Sigler, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-22950
(S.D. Fla., July 7, 2016), seeks double damages, reasonable
attorney fees, all overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Valverde and Gomez worked as accounts-in-charge. Rivera worked
loading and unloading merchandise and Ordonez and Chavez worked as
warehouse assistants.

Defendant is a cold storage facility in Miami owned/managed by Lee
and Deborah Sigler.

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


MIAMI THERAPEUTIC: Faces "Gomez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSSYBEL GOMEZ, and others similarly-situated, v. MIAMI
THERAPEUTIC CENTER, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
BLACKBIRD ENTERPRISES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, DYNAMIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., a Florida
Corporation, and DENNIS C. NOBBE, individually, Case 1:16-cv-
23000-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 11, 2016), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
for liquidated damages under the laws of the United States, and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The corporate Defendants operate medical clinics in two locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (786) 923-5899
     E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


MONTECITO WATER: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick Welsh, writing for Santa Barbara Independent, reports that
Judge Thomas Anderle approved a negotiated settlement between the
Montecito Water District and Santa Barbara polo padrone
Pat Nesbitt, who launched a class-action crusade when the district
denied him an agricultural water permit for his polo fields and
made him pay the more expensive residential water rates.

Mr. Nesbitt contended that his personal polo field was, in fact, a
sod farm.  After the water district all but abolished the special
rates for agriculture, Mr. Nesbitt filed a lawsuit against the
district on behalf of all ag operators who may have paid more for
their water than what it cost the district to provide.  Mr.
Nesbitt prevailed, and Montecito agreed to pay up to $1.8 million
plus another $500,000 in legal fees.


MULTI-FINELINE: Settlement Reached in Merger Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Fineline Electronix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company and
the other named defendants in the merger class action litigation
have agreed to the terms of a settlement with the plaintiff to
settle the Litigation.

As disclosed on the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on May 5,
2016 by Multi-Fineline Electronix, Inc. (the "Company" or
"MFLEX"), on April 29, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported stockholder of the Company in the United States District
Court in the Central District of California (the "Merger
Litigation") with respect to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as
it may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement")
entered into on February 4, 2016 with Suzhou Dongshan Precision
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ("DSBJ"), a company organized under the
laws of the People's Republic of China (the "PRC"), and Dragon
Electronix Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of DSBJ ("Merger Sub"), under which Merger
Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with
the Company continuing after the Merger as the surviving
corporation and an indirect subsidiary of DSBJ. The Merger
Litigation alleges that the Company, the individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors, DSBJ and Merger Sub violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proxy solicitation and that certain
individuals aided and abetted such alleged violations.

On June 8, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other named
defendants in the Merger Litigation agreed to the terms of a
settlement with the plaintiff to settle the Merger Litigation. The
terms of this settlement provide, among other things, that the
parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement that
provides for the release of all asserted claims and dismissal with
prejudice of the Merger Litigation. The asserted claims will not
be released, and the Merger Litigation dismissed, until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the court. If approved by
the court, it is expected that the stipulation of settlement will
bind the plaintiff and a putative class of shareholders of the
Company. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. Additionally, as part of the terms of
the settlement, the Company has agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Merger and the Merger Agreement, which
are being filed concurrently with this Current Report on Form 8-K
on Schedule 14A.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Status Conference in Warranty Suit Next Week
------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that Judge Joan B.
Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on May 27, 2016, entered a Case Management
Order setting a July 13, 2017, date for plaintiffs' class
certification motion. The Court also set a further status
conference on July 27, 2016.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation,
Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International
Trucks (collectively, "Navistar") in Canada in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia (the "N&C Action").  Subsequently, six
additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed
in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions").
A certification hearing is scheduled in the N&C Action starting on
June 13, 2016. The plaintiff submitted application materials for
the certification motion, and Navistar's responding materials were
filed on December 4, 2015. There are no court dates scheduled in
any of the other Canadian Actions at this time.

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4
Action"). Subsequently, seventeen additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts,
including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District
of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the
Western District of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, the
District of Alabama, and the District of New Jersey (together with
the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions
name both Navistar International Corporation and Navistar, Inc.
The U.S. Actions allege matters substantially similar to the
Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the
U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to
certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United
States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar
vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced
EGR engine.

In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce
Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and
Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect.
The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract,
breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition,
misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek
relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages,
declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs.

On October 3, 2014, Navistar International Corporation and
Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") seeking to
transfer and consolidate before Judge Gottschall all of the then-
pending U.S. Actions, as well as certain non-class action
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in various federal
district courts.

On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion to consolidate the U.S.
Actions and certain other non-class action lawsuits was granted.
The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S.
Actions that were pending on the date of Navistar's motion before
Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "MDL Action"). The MDL Panel
also consolidated into the MDL Action certain non-class action
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various
federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. For
putative class action lawsuits filed subsequent to Navistar's
original motion, we continue to request that the MDL Panel
similarly transfer and consolidate these U.S. Actions.

At the request of the various law firms representing the
plaintiffs in the MDL Action, on March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall
entered an order in the MDL Action appointing interim lead counsel
and interim liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. On May 11, 2015,
lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). The parties to
the MDL Action exchanged initial disclosures on May 29, 2015. The
Company answered the Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015.

On May 27, 2016, Judge Gottschall entered a Case Management Order
setting a July 13, 2017, date for plaintiffs' class certification
motion. The Court also set a further status conference on July 27,
2016.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Oct. 25 Final Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a Court has
scheduled a final approval hearing for October 25, 2016, on the
settlement in a shareholder class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In March 2013, a putative class action
complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the
Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund -- Lake County and
Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3,
2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed
in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010
and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in
April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf
of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our
common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1,
2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our
former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J.
Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer as defendants. These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5
Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among
other things, that we violated the federal securities laws by
knowingly issuing materially false and misleading statements
concerning our financial condition and future business prospects
and that we misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings
with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") concerning
the timing and likelihood of EPA certification of our EGR
technology to meet 2010 EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs in
these matters seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among
other relief."

"In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating
all 10b-5 Cases before one judge sitting in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois and in July 2013, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The
lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in October
2013.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint enlarged the proposed
class period to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named
fourteen additional current and former directors and officers as
defendants. On December 17, 2013, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.   On July 22, 2014,
the Court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, denied the
lead plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and gave the lead
plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint by
August 22, 2014.

"On August 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint, which narrowed the claims in two ways. First, the
plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of the
defendants. The Second Amended Complaint brought claims against
only Navistar, Dan Ustian, A.J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric
Tech. The plaintiff also shortened the putative class period. In
the prior complaint, the class period began on June 9, 2009. In
the Second Amended Complaint, it begins on March 10, 2010.

"Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on September 23, 2014.  In November 2014, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed Eric Tech as a defendant. On July 10, 2015,
the Court issued its Opinion and Order on our Motion to Dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss was granted in
part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court (i) dismissed all
of plaintiff's claims against the Company, Andrew J. Cederoth and
Jack Allen and (ii) dismissed all of plaintiff's claims against
Daniel C. Ustian, the only remaining defendant, except for claims
regarding two of Mr. Ustian's statements. Further, all of the
dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice except for claims
based on statements made subsequent to the lead plaintiff's last
purchase of the Company's stock (the "Post-Purchase Claims"). The
Court determined the lead plaintiff lacked standing to assert the
Post-Purchase Claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

"At a December 1, 2015 status conference, the parties reported
that a settlement in principle had been reached, subject to, among
other things, final documentation, confirmatory discovery and
Court approval, and the Court filed a minute entry reflecting such
report. On May 25, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, as well as the class notice to be sent
in connection with the settlement. The Court scheduled the Final
Approval Hearing for October 25, 2016."


NIMBLE STORAGE: Consolidated Securities Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Nimble Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit.

On December 17, 2015, a purported securities class action entitled
Vikramkumar v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors. A second purported securities class action entitled
Guardino v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on December 23,
2015, and a third purported class action entitled Madhani v.
Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on February 5, 2016, also
in the Northern District of California against the same parties.
The complaints in the three actions allege claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial results.

On March 28, 2016, the Court ordered that the three actions be
consolidated under the caption In re Nimble Storage, Inc.
Securities Litigation, or In re Nimble Sec. Lit. The Company has
not yet responded to any complaint. Given the early stage in the
litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or
range of possible loss.


OOMA INC: Securities Actions Consolidated
-----------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2016, that the securities litigation have been
consolidated,

The Company said, "On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a
purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County
Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959)
against Ooma, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
of the underwriters of our Initial Public Offering on July 17,
2015 (the "IPO"). Since that time two additional purported class
actions making substantially the same allegations against the same
defendants were filed, and on May 18, 2016 all three complaints
were combined into a "consolidated complaint" filed in the same
court (the "Securities Litigation"). The consolidated complaints
purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
shares of common stock in our IPO in reliance upon the
Registration Statement and Prospectus we filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The consolidated complaint
alleges that Ooma and the other defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") by issuing the
Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege
contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs
seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages,
equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the
court may deem proper."

"Ooma believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
we are vigorously defending against the Securities Litigations and
will continue to do so. However, litigation is unpredictable and
there can be no assurances that we will obtain a favorable final
outcome or that we will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary
or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may
significantly add to the expense of our defense and could result
in substantial costs and diversion of resources.  Based on our
current knowledge, we have determined that the amount of any
material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible
to result from the Securities Litigation is not reasonably
estimable."


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in "Bushansky" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13,
2016, that a settlement has been reached in the Bushansky
litigation.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus (the
"definitive proxy statement/prospectus) included within the
Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended (Registration
Statement No. 333-210787) filed by Pinnacle with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016 (the "Registration
Statement") related to Pinnacle's proposed merger with Avenue, on
May 9, 2016 a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, 20th Judicial District
at Nashville, styled Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, versus Avenue Financial
Holdings, Inc. Ronald L. Samuels, Kent Cleaver, David G. Anderson,
Agenia Clark, James F. Deutsch, Marty Dickens, Patrick G. Emery,
Nancy Falls, Joseph C. Galante, David Ingram. Stephen Moore, Ken
Robold, Karen Saul and Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.,
Defendants (Case No. 16-489-IV), alleging that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
approving the sale of Avenue for an inadequate price as the result
of a flawed sales process, agreeing to the inclusion of
unreasonable deal protection devices in the merger agreement,
approving the merger in order to receive benefits not equally
shared by all other shareholders of Avenue, and issuing materially
misleading and incomplete disclosures to Avenue's shareholders.
The lawsuit also alleges claims against Avenue and Pinnacle for
aiding and abetting the individual defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties. The plaintiff purports to seek class-wide
relief, including but not limited to: an injunction enjoining
Defendants from proceeding with the merger, monetary damages, and
an award of interest, attorney's fees, and expenses.  On May 18,
2016, the Bushansky litigation was transferred to the Davidson
County, Tennessee Business Court Pilot Project (the "Business
Court").

Each of Pinnacle and Avenue believes the claims asserted in this
action are without merit and that no further disclosure is
required to supplement the definitive proxy statement/prospectus
under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.  However,
to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, on June 10, 2016, the defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff regarding
settlement of the Bushansky litigation (the "memorandum of
understanding"). The memorandum of understanding outlines the
terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release
all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Bushansky
action. The memorandum of understanding and Pinnacle's and
Avenue's agreement to make the supplemental disclosures included
herein are not, and should not be construed as, an admission of
wrongdoing or liability by any defendant. The defendants have
vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing
or liability with respect to the facts and claims asserted, or
which could have been asserted, in the Bushansky litigation,
including that they have committed any violations of law or breach
of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted any violations of law or
breaches of fiduciary duty, acted improperly in any way or have
any liability or owe any damages of any kind to the plaintiff or
to the purported class.

In consideration for the settlement of the Bushansky litigation
and release of claims contemplated thereby, the parties to the
action have agreed that Avenue and Pinnacle will make certain
supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus, all of which are set forth below.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
attempt in good faith to agree promptly upon a stipulation of
settlement to be submitted to the Business Court for approval at
the earliest practicable time.  The stipulation of settlement will
be subject to approval by the Business Court, which will consider
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, following final
approval by the Business Court, the action will be dismissed with
prejudice. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Business Court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, or if the
merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement
will be null and void and of no force and effect.

The settlement of the Bushansky litigation will not affect the
timing of the meeting at which the merger will be considered by
Avenue's shareholders or the amount of the merger consideration to
be paid to Avenue's shareholders in connection with the merger.


PRIDE: D. Gibson Applies for First Opt-Out Class Action in UK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Ginsberg, Esq. -- mginsberg@pbwt.com -- and Deirdre
McEvoy, Esq. -- dmcevoy@pbwt.com -- of Patterson Belknap Webb &
Tyler LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on June 21,
2016, the United Kingdom Competition Appeal Tribunal (the
"Tribunal") published notice of an application to commence
collective proceedings under Section 47B of the UK's competition
act.  If this action continues, it will be the first opt-out
collective (class action) competition claims to be heard by the
Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The current action is brought by Dorothy Gibson, who has applied
for a collective proceedings order permitting her and the National
Pensioners Convention (an umbrella organization for around 1000
pension groups across the UK comprising approximately 1.2 million
individual members) to act as the class representative in bringing
opt-out collective proceedings against Pride Mobility Products
Limited ("Pride").  This action is a follow-on action for damages
following a 2014 Office of Fair Trading decision that found that
Pride and other retailers entered into agreements aimed at
prohibiting online advertising for certain models of Pride
mobility scooters below Pride's recommended retail prices.  The
proposed class is any person who purchased a new Pride mobility
scooter in the UK from February 2010-February 2012.

The Statutory Scheme

On October 1, 2015, the Consumer Rights Act allowed for the first
time the possibility of opt-out class actions for private
enforcement of competition claims.  Like in the US, collective
actions must be brought on behalf of an identifiable class of
persons, raise common issues, and otherwise be suitable to be
brought in collective proceedings.

In allowing for opt-out class actions, the new law has put into
effect several provisions designed to provide "intensive case
management by the Tribunal, so as to ensure that the interests of
the class are adequately protected."  To initiate a collective
proceeding -- and unlike an ordinary civil proceeding -- requires
authorization of the class representative and certification of the
claims as eligible for inclusion in collective proceedings.  Then,
the proposed class representative must apply to the Tribunal for a
collective proceedings order.  Notably, the class representative
"need not be a member of the class and is not required to have a
personal claim against the proposed defendant."  This is a marked
difference between class actions in the UK and the United States.
Still, similar to provisions in the United States, UK law requires
that the class representative would fairly and adequately act in
the interests of the class members and that it is competent to
manage what is likely to be a large and complex litigation.  Other
factors involved in evaluating class representatives include
whether there is a conflict of interest, the quality of the
proposed litigation plan, and the proposed class representative's
financial resources (i.e., "would the proposed class
representative be able to pay the defendant's recoverable costs if
ordered to do so?").  UK law anticipates that there are "a range
of pre-existing bodies which could potentially seek to carry out
the role of class representative, such as consumers'
organizations, trade associates, law firms, third party funders or
special purpose vehicles."

Many of these rules apply to both opt-in and opt-out collective
proceedings.  In evaluating whether proceedings should be opt-in
or opt-out, the Tribunal has stated that it will generally
consider the strength of the claims (the Tribunal "will usually
expect the strength of the claims to be more immediately
perceptible in an opt-out than an opt-in case") and
practicability.  There remains "a general preference for
proceedings to be opt-in where practicable."

A settlement of opt-out collective proceedings "will only bind the
parties and the class if it has been approved by the Tribunal."
The essential question in evaluating a settlement is whether it is
"just and reasonable."  More specifically, the Tribunal has
prepared this illustration regarding who is bound by a settlement
of a collective action:

Next Steps

The Gibson application to commence collective proceedings argues
that the mobility scooter claims are suitable to be brought in
collective proceedings because, inter alia, the sums at stake are
too low for it to be cost effective to bring proceedings
individually; that the consumers in question are likely to be
particularly vulnerable; that the class definition is clear and
simple; and that the claim is suitable for an aggregate award of
damages.  It remains to be seen whether the UK will allow this
action to proceed as an opt-out class action.  If it does, this
case is one to watch as it will likely pave the way for similar
actions in the future.


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Updates on "Hernandez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company
has provided an accounting of satisfaction of judgment to the
Court and the Court has not issued its final order.

On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the
Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971
by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with
credit cards.

On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the Court, the
parties filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon
claims process for the class members as well as to other matters
related to this proceeding.

On September 5, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in
fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered
judgment on September 29, 2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class
member filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. As a result of
the appeal, the judgment was stayed until January 10, 2015. The
appeal remains pending but the judgment is enforceable.

As a result of these developments, during fiscal 2014, the Company
recorded a $9.5 million charge related to this matter that was
subsequently decreased to approximately $8 million. The decrease
of approximately $1.5 million was based on a revision of estimated
class member response.

On March 16, 2015, the Company, through the third party claims
administrator, began mailing the class action award to class
members. The Company, through the third party claims
administrator, paid approximately $2.4 million in cash awards to
the class members and mailed 33% discount coupons, good for one
year, on purchases up to $10,000, to class members that did not
request the cash award.

During a hearing on April 16, 2015, the Court provided additional
guidance regarding the manner in which class members can use the
33% merchandise discount coupon. Specifically, the court ordered
that the 33% coupons may be combined with the Company's other
promotional offers. The coupons expired on March 16, 2016.

On April 5, 2016, the Company provided an accounting of
satisfaction of judgment to the Court and the Court has not issued
its final order.

The Company is a luxury retailer in the home furnishings
marketplace.


RIDDELL: Paul Hornung Sued Over Helmet-Related Concussions
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Belson, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Paul Hornung, the Hall of Fame running back with the Green Bay
Packers, has sued Riddell, asserting that the company knew of the
dangers of brain trauma more than 50 years ago but failed to warn
him and other players that their helmets would do nothing to
prevent concussions.

The lawsuit, which seeks damages of at least $50,000, is the
latest legal challenge against Riddell, the biggest sports helmet
manufacturer in the country.  Riddell is a co-defendant with the
N.F.L. in a class-action lawsuit filed by thousands of former
football players who accused the company and the league of hiding
the dangers of concussions from them.

In that case, Riddell was able to separate its claims from the
N.F.L., which has agreed to a settlement that could pay hundreds
of millions of dollars to players with severe neurological
disorders.  Once that case is fully resolved -- it still may be
appealed -- the federal judge overseeing it, Anita B. Brody, will
return to the question of whether the players have a legitimate
claim against Riddell.

Mr. Hornung, though, sued only Riddell, so that his case would not
be lumped together with the class-action suit, which is being
heard in Philadelphia.

In his complaint, filed in state court in Illinois, Hornung claims
that Riddell should have warned players that its plastic helmets,
while helping to prevent skull fractures, "provided no protection"
against brain trauma, including concussions.

"Prior to, during and after Paul Hornung's N.F.L. football career,
Riddell knew of the harmful long-term effects of brain traumas
sustained by football players while wearing Riddell's supposed
protective equipment; however, it misrepresented and concealed
these facts from Paul Hornung," the complaint said.

Erin Griffin, a spokeswoman for the company, said that Riddell was
not aware of Mr. Hornung's lawsuit and that it did not comment on
continuing litigation.

Mr. Hornung, 80, sustained concussions and subconcussive hits
during his career, which lasted from 1957 to 1966.  In college, at
Notre Dame, he wore a leather helmet without a face mask.  It was
only when he made it to the N.F.L. that he wore a plastic helmet
with a face mask.

Mr. Hornung's lawyers said that players were led to believe the
plastic helmet would offer more protection, which emboldened them
to take risks they never would have taken with leather helmets.

"Riddell made promises to everyone that wore that helmet, and the
evidence will show that they built an industry based on the safety
of the device, analogous to filters on cigarettes," said Brad
Sohn, one of the lawyers representing Mr. Hornung.  "People relied
on them to make the game safer, when in fact it made it more
dangerous."

Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Corboy & Demetrio is partnering with the Brad Sohn Law Firm in
Coral Gables, Fla., on Hornung's lawsuit. The Hall of Famer is
seeking unspecified damages from Riddell and several of its
affiliated companies.


ROCKWATER ENERGY: Faces "Gomez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RENE GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ROCKWATER ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC. Case 4:16-cv-02035
(S.D. Tex., July 11, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides products and services for the oil and gas
industry, including such operations as directional drilling,
measurement while drilling, and well completions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John David Hart, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART
     Wells Fargo Tower
     201 Main Street, Suite 1720
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 870-2102
     Fax: (817) 332-5858
     E-mail: johnhart@hartlaw.com


ROSS STORES: Class Action Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company has been
named in class action lawsuits, primarily in California, alleging
violation of wage and hour laws and consumer protection laws.
Class action litigation remains pending as of April 30, 2016.


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Shiloh Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company's motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains pending.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on September 21, 2015
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its officers (the
President and Chief Executive Office and Vice President of Finance
and Treasurer). As amended, the lawsuit claims in part that the
Company issued inaccurate information to investors about, among
other things, the Company's earnings and income and its internal
controls over financial reporting for fiscal 2014 and  the first
and second fiscal quarters of 2015 in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks an award of
damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class
consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between January 12, 2015 and September 14, 2015, inclusive. The
Company and such officers filed a Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on April 18, 2016.


STRAIGHT PATH: Scheduling Order Entered in New Jersey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Straight Path Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the court has
entered a scheduling order providing that lead plaintiff must file
an amended class action complaint by June 17, 2016; defendants
have 60 days to answer or otherwise respond to the amended
complaint; lead plaintiff has 45 days to respond; and defendants
have 30 days to reply.

On November 13, 2015, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey
against Straight Path Communications Inc. (the "Company"), Davidi
Jonas, and Jonathan Rand (the "individual defendants"). The case
is captioned Zacharia v. Straight Path Communications, Inc. et
al., No. 2:15-cv-08051-JMV-MF, and is purportedly brought on
behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between October 29, 2013, and November 5,
2015. The complaint alleges violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act against the Company for materially false
and misleading statements that were designed to influence the
market relating to the Company's finances and business prospects;
and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants for wrongful acts by controlling persons. The
allegations center on the claim that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements in its public filings and
conference calls during the relevant class period concerning the
Company's spectrum licenses and the prospects for its spectrum
business. The complaint seeks certification of a class,
unspecified damages, fees, and costs.

The case was reassigned to Judge John Michael Vasquez on March 3,
2016.

On April 11, 2016, the court entered an order appointing Charles
Frischer as lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's
selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel and
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as liaison counsel.

On April 18, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order providing
that lead plaintiff must file an amended class action complaint by
June 17, 2016; defendants have 60 days to answer or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint; lead plaintiff has 45 days to
respond; and defendants have 30 days to reply.


SUMMIT WELL: Faces "Cantu" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN CANTU, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUMMIT WELL SERVICES, L.L.C., DENNIS HINOJOSA, and
RANDAL HINOJOSA Case 2:16-cv-00287 (S.D. Tex., July 11, 2016),
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SUMMIT WELL SERVICES, L.L.C. is headquartered in Laredo, Texas and
is engaged in multiple oilfield services throughout the drilling,
completion and production cycle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
     Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
     ANDERSON2X, PLLC
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com


TENNESSEE: Holt Calls for Class Action Over Traffic Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Tomahawk reports that Tennessee State Representative
Andy Holt (R-Dresden) has been on a crusade against the use of
photo-enforcement cameras for many years, citing that they are
illegal and turn the American justice system on its head.  Giving
a boost to Mr. Holt's argument, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert
Slatery responded to a request by Mr. Holt to opine on whether or
not out-of-state traffic camera companies contracted by Tennessee
cities were in violation of state law on July 6.

At the heart of Mr. Holt's issue, is the fact that out-of-state
photo-enforcement companies contracted throughout the state of
Tennessee have utilized non-law enforcement employees to
preliminarily review video footage of supposed traffic violations,
and are then making determinations regarding whether or not a
violation has occurred.  The scrubbed footage is then sent back to
local law enforcement agencies with violations that are simply
rubber-stamped by a POST-certified officer.  Local law enforcement
agencies often claim that an officer "witnessed" the supposed
violator and by placing their signature on the ticket claim to
validate the supposed violation. For all practical purposes,
actual law enforcement personnel have been removed from the
current photo-enforcement process, with the single exception of
simply placing the signature of an officer on each ticket that has
already been processed by the employees of these private
companies.

"The framework used by traffic camera companies in Tennessee is
flat out illegal," said Mr. Holt.  "Photographic evidence of
motorists is streamed from these privately owned cameras to  out-
of-state data centers where people with zero knowledge of
Tennessee law, who you & I have never met, sit on a computers and
decide whether or not  to send the supposed violation back to
local law enforcement officials.  State law mandates that only
POST-certified or state commissioned law enforcement officers
shall be authorized to review video evidence from a traffic light
signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether or
not a violation has occurred.  How many violations do these people
decide not to send back to local law enforcement? Since when were
they granted the authority to enforce law in the State of
Tennessee? I'm sure many Tennesseans would love to have an out-of-
state friend working at one of these companies that could simply
delete the footage of their violation."

Photo-enforcement camera companies used in Tennessee, like
American Traffic Solutions (ATS), readily admit to the fact that
their employees review footage and determine whether a violation
has occurred before sending the violations back to local law
enforcement.  In their marketing material, ATS uses it as one of
their central selling points to government agencies.

"These call-center type employees are tasked with  throwing out
footage that they feel doesn't violate state law," said Mr. Holt.
"So, when a vehicle speeding by or running a red light activates
the camera, these employees get to determine whether or not they
will send that footage back to local police.  They are making a
determination as to whether or not state law was violated before
having police confirm the violation."

Mr. Slatery's opinion states that it doesn't matter whether or not
the camera company employees are viewing the footage for a
preliminary, or final determination as to whether or not someone
violated the law, but by them simply viewing the footage, they are
in violation of state law.

"Only POST-certified or state commissioned law enforcement
officers are authorized to review video evidence from a traffic
light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to
whether or not a violation has occurred," opined Mr. Slatery.
"Employees of private traffic camera companies are not
POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers and
therefore are not authorized to review video evidence and make
violation determinations."

Mr. Holt says he hopes to see a class action lawsuit filed soon.

"We have a situation where every single Tennessee motorist, even
motorists just passing through our state, who has received a
photo-enforcement ticket in the mail may have had that ticket
issued illegally.  If one single person other than a POST-
certified or state commissioned law enforcement officer looked at
the footage of a supposed violator's vehicle before sending it off
to local police to confirm the preliminary determination with
their rubber-stamped signature, then that ticket was issued
illegally.  In my opinion, each of the  individuals whom have paid
these illegally issued citations must be repaid.  I hope to see a
class action lawsuit, and I have actually spoken with some law
firms that are very interested in taking on this prospect," said
Mr. Holt.  "It's funny, really.  We have these cities & private
companies accusing people of violating the law, meanwhile they
readily violate the law themselves in order to literally illegally
extort hard-earned money from Tennessee citizens & our visitors.
It enrages me.  Many of these individuals are people already on a
tight budget, and often times feel the need to prioritize paying
these fraudulent, coercive & illegal citations over other
legitimate expenditures such as food, healthcare, school supplies
or other basic needs.  If you violate the law, an officer should
have to pull you over and cite you.  Plain and simple."

Mr. Holt says he is also contacting District Attorneys across the
state to ask them to order a cease and desist on all photo-
enforcement devices in the State of Tennessee that may be subject
to General Slatery's opinion.

Rep. Andy Holt is a Republican representing Weakley, as well as,
parts of Obion and Carroll counties.


TILLY'S INC: Appeal Pending in "Christiansen" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Tilly's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that an appeal is pending
in the case, Kirstin Christiansen, Shellie Smith and Paul Haug, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. World
of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento, Case No. 34-2013-139010.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this
matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging
violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which
prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification
information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card
and recording such information, subject to exceptions. The
complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees."

"In June 2013, the Court granted our motion to strike portions of
the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
The parties completed class certification discovery and briefing,
and a hearing was held on August 13, 2015.

"On September 17, 2015, the Court issued an order denying
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On or around November
30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order
denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The deadline
for plaintiffs to file their opening brief has not yet been set.
We intend to defend this case vigorously."


TILLY'S INC: Parties in "Rebolledo" Case Reached Resolution
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Maria Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public vs.
Tilly's, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-
CXC, have attended a mediation proceeding and reached a
resolution.

The Company said, "On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this
matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest
break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among
other things. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013,
to add a claim for penalties under the California Private
Attorneys General Act. In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which was denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on
appeal. In October 2014, we filed an answer to the amended
complaint. The parties attended a mediation proceeding and reached
a resolution that will be presented to the Court for approval."


TILLY'S INC: Parties Discuss Resolution of "Whitten" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Karina Whitten, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc., Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 548252, continue to discuss
resolution.

The Company said, "On June 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative
class action and representative Private Attorney General Act
lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and
hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair
competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class
certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint on December 3, 2014, dismissing an expense reimbursement
claim. We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015, after which
the case was stayed pending mediation. We engaged in mediation in
May 2016, and the parties continue to discuss resolution. We
intend to defend this case vigorously if not resolved."


TILLY'S INC: Demurrer in "Ward" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------
Tilly's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company's demurrer
in the case, Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, remains
pending.

The Company said, "On September 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us, alleging violations of
California's wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair
competition law.  Specifically, the complaint asserts a violation
of the applicable California Wage Order for alleged failure to pay
reporting time pay, as well as several derivative claims.  The
complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees."

"We are defending the case vigorously. On February 12, 2016, we
filed a demurrer to Plaintiff's complaint, on the grounds that
Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's.  We
believe Plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails
as a matter of law as Plaintiff and other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
Plaintiff's claims are based.  Plaintiff filed her opposition to
the demurrer on April 29, 2016, and we filed our reply in support
of its demurrer on May 13, 2016.  We anticipate that a hearing
date will be set by the Court for early June 2016."


TIMBERCORP: Class Member Not Precluded by Anshun Estoppel
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Holloway, Esq., of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reports that on June 1, 2016, the Victorian
Court of Appeal determined that a group member in a class action
is not precluded by Anshun estoppel from raising separate defences
in claims against them.

Short history of the Timbercorp proceedings

The Timbercorp group of companies operated managed investment
schemes.  The group went into liquidation in June 2009, at which
time there were more than 14,500 outstanding loans to over 7,500
borrowers, totalling more than $450m.

In October 2009, a class action was commenced in the Supreme Court
of Victoria against various companies in the Timbercorp group,
including Timbercorp Finance.  The claims made in the proceeding
related to alleged deficiencies in various product disclosure
statements issued in respect of the managed investments schemes.
The class action was ultimately unsuccessful.

Subsequently, Timbercorp Finance commenced separate proceedings
against three individuals. Each of them were within the definition
of group members in the earlier class action, and had not opted
out.  Each individual sought to defend the recovery proceedings by
raising defenses based upon facts and circumstances peculiar to
each of them.  Timbercorp Finance asserted that the individuals
were precluded from raising these defenses because they were a
group member in the class action and were estopped from raising
those defenses, and that the defences should be stayed as an abuse
of process.

At first instance, Justice Robson held that the individuals were
not precluded from raising any of these defenses, either by Anshun
estoppel or by the principles of abuse of process.  This finding
was appealed by Timbercorp Finance, and the Court of Appeal
determined on June 1, 2016 that leave to appeal should be granted,
but the appeal should be dismissed.

Court of Appeal decision

Interestingly, the Court of Appeal found that:

   -- if the conditions contained in section 33C(1) of the Supreme
Court Act are met there is nothing to prevent plaintiffs from
raising issues for determination in which they have no interest,

   -- the Court has power to permit any group member to draw
remaining questions to its attention (s 33Q(1), Supreme Court
Act),

   -- a group member may be "Anshun stopped" only if it was
unreasonable for him or her not to have raised, during the group
proceeding, some claim other than the common questions of law or
fact;

   -- it does not follow that the failure by a group member to
opt-out and/or to use section 33Q to draw the Court's attention to
any claim that is peculiar to that individual means that they will
be automatically precluded from raising that claim in later
proceedings,

   -- while part 4A of the Supreme Court Act expressly provides
for a statutory estoppel in respect of any determination of the
common questions of law and fact, it does not provide for any
estoppel in respect of claims peculiar to a group member that were
not advanced in the group proceeding;

   -- whether there will be an Anshun estoppel depends upon a
"merits-based" assessment, taking into account all the
circumstances of the case,

   -- group members are not to be taken as having abandoned their
individual defenses by reason of not having raised them in the
group proceeding, or not having opted out of the group proceeding,
and

   -- there is nothing in Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act that
supports the contention that where a group member has not opted
out, that individual will be taken to have accepted that the
determination of the group proceeding will be the complete
resolution of all or any claims that person has in respect of the
group claim or any similar or related claim.

Comment

At first blush, the Court of Appeal's decision suggests a
deficiency in the structure and operation of class actions, in
that it suggests that the finalization of all disputes in relation
to the subject matter are not necessarily achieved. However, in
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP's view the decision is a reflection of
the fact that the group procedure is directed at resolution of
common questions and issues and is not always intended to be, nor
is, the vehicle by which all claims of individual group members
are to be decided.


TORNADO PRODUCTION: Faces "Watts" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WATTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TORNADO PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC, Case 2:16-cv-00284
(S.D. Tex., July 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TORNADO PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC is an independent crude oil and
natural gas service company in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


URANIUM ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that on or about June 29,
2015, Heather M. Stephens filed a class action complaint against
the Company and two of its executive officers in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, with an amended class
action complaint filed on November 16, 2015, (the "Securities
Case") seeking unspecified damages and alleging the defendants
violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
Company has filed a motion to dismiss.


VALSPAR CORPORATION: Faces "Mitsopoulos" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Valspar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 29, 2016, that a putative class
action lawsuit challenging a merger agreement was filed on May 24,
2016, that names Valspar and its board of directors as defendants.
The complaint, captioned Mitsopoulos v. Valspar (Case No. 12373),
was filed on May 24, 2016 in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by a purported stockholder of Valspar.

On March 19, 2016, Valspar entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with The Sherwin-Williams Company and Viking Merger Sub
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sherwin-Williams.

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the transaction and alleges, among
other things, that the members of the Valspar board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material
information relating to the transaction, including with respect to
the financial analyses of Valspar's financial advisors and
financial projections prepared by Valspar management. The parties
believe the claims asserted in the lawsuit are without merit. At
this time, Valspar is unable to reasonably estimate any potential
material loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in the
lawsuit.


VALVE: Faces Second Class Action Over CSGO Lotto
------------------------------------------------
Jacob Wolf, writing for ESPN Esports, reports that a new class
action lawsuit against Counter-Strike: Global Offensive developer
Valve was filed on July 6 in Florida by a mother on behalf of her
son, a minor.  The case alleges that the Valve knowingly allows
and profits from teenagers participating in illegal, unregulated
and underage gambling of in-game cosmetic weapon skins through
third-party sites.

On July 7, the suit was updated to include CSGO Lotto Inc., Trevor
"Tmartn" Martin and Thomas "ProSyndicate" Cassell, who were
recently caught deceiving their audience by playing and winning on
CSGO Lotto without disclosing they owned the site.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages and restitution, stating that
Valve, Martin and Cassel violated federal anti-racketeering
statutes and Florida consumer protection laws.

This lawsuit is the second of its kind within the past month, with
the previous case being filed in the state of Connecticut. Both
lawsuits have a broad focus against alleged illegal gambling with
no protections in place, such as age verification, with references
to the likes of websites CSGO Lounge, CSGO Diamonds, and OPSkins.

Skin betting is a practice where a user acquires a crate in CS:GO
and opens it by purchasing a key. The crate contains skins, which
alter the look of weapons in the game, with a variety of rarities.
The skins hold real value, from one cent to thousands of dollars.
A user can sell the skins, or bet them on esports matches on
third-party sites, in turn possibly winning more skins to sell for
more money.

An article published by Bloomberg in April cited just over $2
billion in online bets in 2015, but Narus Advisors, the company
supplying the stat, tells ESPN that those numbers have risen
dramatically.  Narus provided a report that shows Counter-Strike
gambling and betting sites earn $7.4 billion annually, with $1.9
billion of that earned by jackpot sites, such as those both
plaintiffs gambled on -- all of it unregulated.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive gambling has been a growing
problem in the esports community due to a lack of oversight.  In
2015, multiple professional players were banned in a betting
scandal following a report by esports journalist Richard Lewis.
Recently, controversy with pro streamer Mohamad "m0E" Assad
surfaced over a gambling site rigging the jackpot for him to win
in order to gain promotion on his Twitch stream.   YouTube stars
Trevor "Tmartn" Martin and Thomas "ProSyndicate" Cassell were
caught in a scandal with their site, CSGO Lotto.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Updates on Israel Securities Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, provided updates on the
Israel Securities Class Actions.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint
was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv,
Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange. The complaint sought compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports."

"We filed a motion to stay the action, in light of the proceedings
already filed in the U.S., on March 31, 2008. A hearing on the
motion was held on May 25, 2008. Further briefing in support of
the stay motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue
of applicable law, was submitted on June 25, 2008.

"On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in our
favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining our
liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli
Supreme Court. Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed
on January 21, 2009.

"The Israeli District Court stayed its proceedings until the
Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to
appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli
Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for
leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli
District Court. The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli
District Court to rule whether the Israel class action should be
stayed, under the assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for reconsideration
of the Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the
applicable law.

"Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12,
2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending
resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice
to plaintiffs' right to appeal the Israeli District Court's
decision regarding the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme
Court. On May 24, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the Israeli
Supreme Court. In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to
the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561
U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the
appeal currently pending before the Court and requesting that this
authority be added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently
filed an application with the Israeli District Court asking that
court to reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S.
law to the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision
to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action
in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.

"On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision
denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that
the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The
Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in
the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S.
class action.

"On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for
leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. We
filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1,
2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the
application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli
Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated notice on the status
of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by
October 1, 2012.

"On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status notice in the
Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S. securities
class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court
held a further hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the
parties meet and confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli
plaintiffs in the federal class action pending in the U.S.

"On February 10, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court issued an order
staying the case pursuant to the joint notice submitted to the
court by the parties on February 4, 2013. The plaintiff and
putative class members in this action are included in the
stipulated settlement of the federal securities class action, In
re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., disclosed above unless an individual
plaintiff opts out. Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and
orders by the U.S. court, on May 1, 2014, the parties in the
Israel class action filed a joint motion requesting that the
Israeli Supreme Court renew the proceedings on appeal concerning
the determination of the applicable law.

"A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel
class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S.
class action. On July 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental
pleading at the court's request. We filed our reply pleading on
August 21, 2014, and plaintiff filed a further response pleading
on September 4, 2014. On April 2, 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court
ruled that the Israeli class action is estopped by the U.S. class
action settlement and dismissed the case.

"On May 12, 2015, a new class action complaint was filed against
us in Israel alleging similar claims as the dismissed Israeli
class action, and alleging that Israeli shareholders were deprived
of due process in the U.S. class action settlement proceedings. We
are opposing the new class action on substantially the same
grounds on which the previous case was dismissed.

"On June 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the 2008 Israel Securities
Class Action filed a motion for award of compensation and
attorneys' fees based on the amount of settlement compensation
received by Israelis in the U.S. class action. On January 14,
2016, the Israeli District Court denied this motion. Plaintiff has
not timely appealed, and this ruling is now final."


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Updates on California Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, provided updates on the
VeriFone Securities Litigation pending in California.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against us, certain of our former officers
and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection
with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action,
captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13-
1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities
Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and
February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were
based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding our business,
operations, and financial controls during the putative class
period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers
Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV
13-1853) were filed in April 2013.

"On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law
firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class
actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235
Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v.
VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their
respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July
17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone
Systems, Inc. et al.

"On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the
Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended
complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended
complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011
and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer
who was named in the original complaint from the action.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014
and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court
took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument.
On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with
leave to amend. Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint on October 7, 2014.

"On March 29, 2016, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, finding it insufficiently pled, and
granted leave to amend by June 3, 2016. Instead of filing a third
amended complaint, lead plaintiffs are stipulating to a judgment
of dismissal with prejudice so they can appeal the court's
dismissal of their second amended complaint."


VERINT SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that summations on
plaintiffs' motion to certify a lawsuit as a class action remain
under consideration by the district court.

The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced
by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09)
(the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms.
Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the
grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees
and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options
and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during our previous extended filing delay period. In the
Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages."

"On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for
lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.
On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In
the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In
the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do
not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Katriel
Labor Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based
on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer.

"On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an
uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on
June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms.
Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an
amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse
Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect
the distribution of all of the issued and outstanding shares of
capital stock of its former subsidiary, Comverse, Inc., on July
12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the
District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in
assets to secure any future judgment. The District Court ruled
that it would not decide this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel
class certification motion was heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a
motion to appeal this ruling in August 2012, but subsequently
withdrew it in July 2014.

"Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On
October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution,
in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the
Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public
company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest
in us. On September 9, 2015, Comverse changed its name to Xura,
Inc. ("Xura").

"On February 4, 2013, we merged with CTI. As a result of the
merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI,
including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District
Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the terms
of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse relating to
the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to CTI, are
entitled to indemnification from Comverse (now Xura) for any
losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI
in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel
District Action.

"Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding
before the District Court resumed and the parties have filed
summations on the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a
class action, which remain under consideration by the District
Court."


VIOLIN MEMORY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
Violin Memory, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a Court has set a
Final Settlement Approval Hearing for July 26, 2016.

Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California naming the Company and a number of
its present or former directors and officers, and the underwriters
of the Company's September 27, 2013 initial public offering (the
"IPO"). The four complaints were consolidated into a single,
putative class action, and on March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated complaint purporting to assert claims under the
federal securities laws, based upon seven categories of alleged
omissions, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
issued in the IPO.

The parties have reached a settlement that, if approved by the
Court, will fully resolve the claims brought by plaintiffs on
behalf of the class they seek to represent. The proposed
settlement establishes a settlement fund of $7.5 million in return
for a release of all claims in this matter. The settlement fund
will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier and will not
result in any additional expense to the Company.

On March 16, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and set a Final
Approval Hearing for July 26, 2016. Pursuant to the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order, notice and claim forms will be mailed
to class members and class members will have an opportunity to
submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement, and/or object to the
settlement. At the final approval hearing, the Court will consider
the notice process and results, any objections and other relevant
information. The Court will then decide whether to finally approve
the class settlement. If the settlement is approved, the
settlement funds will be disbursed as provided in the settlement
agreement and the Court's orders.

A putative stockholder derivative action is pending before the
same court as the putative class action. In the derivative action,
the plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company by violating the federal securities laws and exposing
the Company to possible financial liability. The parties agreed to
stay the derivative action pending further developments in the
putative class action. The parties have agreed upon a settlement
of the derivative action, which is in the process of being
documented and presented for the Court's approval. We can make no
assurances that the settlement will be consummated or finally
approved by the court.

The Company believes the ultimate outcome of the current legal
proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, results of
operations or cash flows. However, because of the inherent
uncertainties surrounding litigation, should the outcome of these
actions be unfavorable, the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows could be materially
and adversely affected.


VLAD RESTORATION: Faces "Alcantara-Flores" Wage and Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FLORENCIO ALCANTARA-FLORES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. VLAD RESTORATION LTD. and VLAD
TOMCZAK, an individual, CV16-3847 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2016), seeks
to recover damages for alleged egregious violations by Defendants
of state and federal wage and hour laws.

VLAD TOMCZAK owns and/or operates VLAD RESTORATION LTD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Romam AvShalumov, Esq.
     Puja Sharma, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     69-12 Austin Street
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Phone: (718) 263-9591
     Fax: (718) 263-9598


VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: Denies Using Defeat Devices in Local Models
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McCowen, writing for Drive, reports that Volkswagen
Australia has denied using emissions defeat devices in local
models while dismissing billions of dollars in fines and
compensation set to be paid to US customers.

Legal representatives for the manufacturer defended class action
lawsuits in the Federal Court of Australia on July 7, where the
brand looked to protect trade secrets surrounding popular models
such as the Volkswagen Golf.

Noel Huntley, a barrister acting on Volkswagen's behalf, told a
directions hearing in Sydney that "there is no defeat device"
present in the manufacturer's cars, something the brand plans to
prove later this year.

But his claim clashes with earlier statements from Volkswagen
Australia, including an October 2015 media release that said
"certain diesel vehicles sold in Australia were fitted with
software that can affect their emissions during a dynamometer
test".

The lawsuits have not legally defined what a defeat device is, or
whether it was present in around 90,000 Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda
vehicles sold in Australia.

Volkswagen made international headlines last year when it admitted
that some of its cars were designed to produce unrealistically
favorable results during emissions tests before polluting
excessively in the real world.  Then-chief executive Martin
Winterkorn stepped down during the scandal, saying he was "stunned
that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen
Group".

Justice Lindsay Foster, the Federal Court judge overseeing class
actions assembled by Maurice Blackburn and Bannister Law, asked
the brand to report back in September with detailed evidence
surrounding emissions produced by a range of Volkswagen and Audi
models at the core of the class action.

Around 90,000 Australian cars are believed to feature the same
software as overseas models which include a hidden mode capable of
modifying emissions performance during lab tests.

The Federal Court Judge also asked for data examining the software
revisions used by Volkswagen in recalls for cars equipped with
2.0-litre turbo diesel engines.

Sandy Dawson, legal counsel for Maurice Blackburn, told the court
that Volkswagen had not outlined exactly how its recalls would
work, whether they affect a vehicle's performance, reliability or
longevity.

"We don't know much at all about the fix," he said.

"What we are interested in is what the technical solution does to
those vehicles."

Mr. Dawson referred to a technical report detailing the emissions
system Volkswagen used to deceive overseas regulators.

"That information is significant.  In reality, the respondent is
producing two cars in one, one car that is used for testing and
one car that is used for driving," he said.

The lawyer pursuing Volkswagen sparked controversy by putting
forward documents surrounding Volkswagen's $20 billion settlement
deal in the US, which has much tighter nitrogen oxide emissions
laws than Australia or Europe.

Mr. Huntley told the court that the submission was "eminently
deficient" and that it "goes precisely nowhere".

Justice Foster agreed Australia's case was different to the US,
warning Mr. Dawson not to try and "poison the well" in an attempt
to discredit Volkswagen's argument.  But Dawson said the US
submission proved a technical point: that Volkswagen's exhaust gas
recirculation system is a key part of its emissions control system
-- a claim denied by Volkswagen's defense team.

Bannister Law solicitor Diane Chapman said the case has a long way
to go, and that it may not be resolved until 2018.
Maurice Blackburn class actions principal Jason Geisker said the
Australian case was being watched around the globe.

"This could be seen as as a litmus test for European countries
that have an identical regulatory regime to Australia," he said.


VIRGINIA: Sued Over Driver's License Suspensions for Poor
---------------------------------------------------------
Frank Green, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that
a federal class-action lawsuit filed on July 5 is challenging
Virginia's system of suspending driver's licenses of people too
poor to pay their court costs and fines.

The complaint alleges that the failure to take into account
reasons for nonpayment or to consider debtors' financial
circumstances before suspending their licenses is discriminatory
and in violation of constitutional protections.

Offenders who are more affluent can pay in order to avoid
suspensions, but many low-income people cannot and get trapped in
a vicious cycle when deprived of transportation to jobs, so they
cannot make money to pay their financial obligations to the
courts, alleges the suit filed by the Charlottesville-based Legal
Aid Justice Center.

A spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General's Office declined to
comment on the lawsuit on July 6.

"We will review the complaint closely with our client agencies and
respond appropriately," spokesman Michael Kelly said.
Once served with the suit, the state has 21 days to respond.

The 56-page complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in
Charlottesville against the commissioner of the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles on behalf of four people with
suspended licenses who represent others "similarly situated."

It states that Virginia relies on driver's license suspension to
coerce payment of money owed the court.

"Those who can afford to pay, generally do," the suit says.  But,
the complaint continues: "Hundreds of thousands of people have
lost their licenses simply because they are too poor to pay,
effectively depriving them of reliable, lawful transportation."

A recent analysis by the justice center said people have 30 days
to pay costs and fines in full or establish a payment plan.
Low-income drivers struggle to meet the minimum down payments or
monthly payments required, get their license suspended and are
therefore punished more harshly than someone who can pay,
according to the center.

Each court has its own procedure for establishing a payment plan.
Last year 1 in 6 state drivers, 900,000 people, had suspended
licenses because of one or more unpaid court costs, the center
said.

The center reported that most Virginia general district courts are
disregarding recommendations made last summer by the Judicial
Council of Virginia aimed at helping low-income residents pay off
court costs and fines.

According to the center, a person convicted of reckless driving in
Virginia risks no more than a six-month suspension of their
license, while a person who fails to pay court costs faces an
indefinite license suspension, often lasting years.

In the year that ended June 30, 2015, the DMV issued 366,773
orders of driver's license suspensions resulting from unpaid court
costs or fines, more than a third of them for offenses unrelated
to driving.

"Driver's license suspension is Virginia's form of a debtors'
prison," Angela Ciolfi, an attorney at the justice center, said in
a statement on July 6.

"Many areas of the state provide no reliable public
transportation, effectively leaving people confined to their homes
or forcing them to risk jail time by driving on suspended
licenses," she said.

The complaint calls for an injunction against the DMV, stopping it
from entering orders of suspension against the licenses of low-
income drivers until the state implements a system to properly
assess drivers' ability to pay court debts.  It also wants the DMV
to reinstate the licenses of all drivers penalized for their
inability to pay.

Ms. Ciolfi said the suit comes as the Virginia Supreme Court
considers new rules regarding payment plans and the General
Assembly prepares to hold a legislative study commission on the
issue.

The complaint says the state has increased court fees in order to
pay for operations and has authorized localities to do the same.
In 1989, court costs for all misdemeanor or traffic violations
were $20.  Now they can run more than $100, including local option
fees -- and that is before adding in any charges for things such
as blood withdrawal or reimbursement of fees paid to lawyers
appointed to represent people too poor to afford one.


WEST VA AMERICAN: Oct. 25 Trial Set in Water Crisis Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that
a federal judge has rescheduled the trial in the class-action
lawsuit against West Virginia American Water Co. and Eastman
Chemical over the January 2014 water crisis for late October.

U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver announced the new trial
date -- Oct. 25 -- during a status hearing held on July 7 in
federal court in Charleston.

Judge Copenhaver had delayed the trial so the parties would have
more time to complete pre-trial investigation and so the court
could properly review dozens of pre-trial motions filed by all
sides of the suit.

In the case, lawyers for hundreds of thousands of residents,
businesses and wage earners in the Kanawha Valley allege that West
Virginia American did not adequately respond to the Jan. 9, 2014,
spill of Crude MCHM and other chemicals from the Freedom
Industries facility along the Elk River, just 1.5 miles upstream
from West Virginia American's regional drinking water intake.

The suit also alleges that Eastman, which manufactured the
chemical MCHM and sold it to Freedom, did not properly test the
chemical or warn buyers or the public about any potential health
impacts or possible safety concerns related to the type of storage
tanks Freedom used.

Last year, Judge Copenhaver approved the case being pursued as a
class-action over the liability, or fault, of the water company
and Eastman.  The judge did not certify a damages class, meaning
damages would have to be determined later, on some case-by-case
basis.

But lawyers for the plaintiff class continue to press Judge
Copenhaver to allow some sort of damages phase to the trial.

Stuart Calwell, a lawyer for the class, told Judge  Copenhaver
again on July 7 that his side would like to have the jury consider
and rule on damages for a model group or some plaintiffs, a move
that would help provide lawyers with an idea of what future juries
might think individual damages cases would be worth.  That kind of
information, depending on the outcome, could serve as an incentive
for one side or the other to settle remaining cases.

Attorneys for both sides reported that they had a productive, two-
day mediation session in late June.  The two sides did not reach
agreement, and both the water company and Eastman continued to say
they need more information about exactly what damages the class
members suffered.

Kevin Thompson, another lawyer for the class, said the plaintiff
team is still gathering data, but it still has a pretty clear idea
that business losses during the water crisis following the Freedom
spill cost area businesses "somewhere in the upper eight figures."

All sides agreed it was helpful to have the mediation include
representatives of a rival faction of lawyers that are pursuing
similar legal claims before the state court system's Mass
Litigation Panel.

"We will keep talking to them and trying to see if there is a way
to resolve this case," said Tom Hurney, a lawyer for West Virginia
American.  "We will continue to communicate."


WHEATON FRANCISCAN: Ex-Employees File Pension Plan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a pair
of former employees have brought a federal class action suit
against Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare and Ascension Health
hospital chains, accusing the companies of mishandling the
employee pension plan and skirting federal pension safeguards by
claiming an undeserved religious exemption.

Bruce Bowen and Cheryl Mueller filed a putative class-action suit
June 28 in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago
against Wheaton Franciscan, which has corporate offices in west
suburban Wheaton and in Glendale, Wis., and against St. Louis-
based Ascension Health.

Wheaton Franciscan has run hospitals and other facilities since
1983 in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado, employing more
than 17,000 people.  On March 1, 2016, Ascension took over Wheaton
Franciscan facilities in southeast Wisconsin, assuming control of
the pension plan for those employees.  Ascension runs about 2,500
medical facilities, including 142 hospitals, employing about
160,000 people, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Bowen worked for Wheaton Franciscan from 1998 to 2014, while
Mueller worked for the company from 1968 to 2015, the suit said.
Both are vested in the retirement plan maintained by defendants.

Plaintiffs' 106-page suit alleged violations of the U.S. Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as well as a violation of
fiduciary duty.

The 1974 Act requires pension plan administrators comply with a
number of provisions in order to protect pensions, but exempts
certain plans administered by a "church or by a convention or
associations of churches."  The exemption was put in place
ostensibly to prevent the government from unnecessarily
interfering with church affairs.

The lawsuit alleged Wheaton Franciscan and Ascension have claimed
the exemption, but do not qualify for it, because they are
"neither run by nor intimately connected to any church
financially."  Rather, they are largely operated by lay people,
rather than clergy, and employees do not have to profess any faith
or creed to work for them.  According to plaintiffs, the exemption
violates the constitutional prohibition barring government from
establishing a religion.

Plaintiffs allege that among defendants' shortcomings, defendants
have misused the church exemption to underfund the pension by
hundreds of millions of dollars and have not informed employees of
amendments to the plan.

"Extension of the Church Plan exemption to Wheaton Franciscan and
Ascension Health, both non-church entities, privileges Wheaton
Franciscan and Ascension Health for their claimed faith at the
expense of their employees, who are told that their faith is not
relevant to their employment, yet who are then denied the benefit
of insured, funded pensions, as well as many other important ERISA
(Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections," plaintiffs
alleged.

Defendants place their "tens of thousands of longtime employees'
justified reliance on their pension benefits at great risk,"
plaintiffs claimed.

Further, plaintiffs contended defendants also enjoy advantage over
competitors, based on their "claimed religious beliefs," as
defendants do not have to devote the same amount of resources to
their pension plan, as do other companies that are not exempt.

Plaintiffs asked the court to revoke the exemption and order the
companies to fully fund and administer the plan in accordance with
the 1974 Act.  They also want Wheaton Franciscan and Ascension to
pay into the plan any money they gained by allegedly breaching
their fiduciary duty, as well as pay any appropriate civil
penalties.

The suit also asked the court to order the plan be placed into a
trust with an independent fiduciary officer to oversee it.

Plaintiffs are represented by the firm of Cohen, Milstein, Sellers
& Toll, which has offices across the country, including Chicago,
as well as by Seattle-based Keller Rohrback Law Offices. A status
hearing is set for Aug. 23, with the case assigned to U.S.
District Judge John Z. Lee.


YRC INC: "Schroeder" Labor Dispute Removed to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Jerald Schroeder on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. YRC
Inc., YRC Worldwide, Inc. and Does 1 - 100, Defendants, Case No.
RG16809671 (Cal. Super., March 30, 2016), was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on July 7,
2016.

Complaint alleges failure to pay all straight time wages and
overtime, failure to provide meal periods and permit rest periods,
failure to provide itemized employee wage statements and failure
to pay all wages due at time of termination from employment under
California Labor Laws and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.

Plaintiff is represented pro se.

Defendant is represented by:

     Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
     SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
     Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
     Alexandra H. Hemenway, Esq.
     Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
     Telephone: 415.434.9100
     Facsimile: 415.434.3947
     Email: rholland@sheppardmullin.com
            ebronchetti@sheppardmullin.com
            ahemenway@sheppardmullin.com


YUBA, CA: "Wolfe" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
Todd Wolfe and David Jans, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. City Of Yuba,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-at-00802 (E.D. Cal., July 7, 2016), seeks
unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon,
liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees for
direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California
where the Plaintiffs were employed.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Mastagni, Esq.
      Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
      Ace T. Tate, Esq.
      MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      1912 "I" Street
      Sacramento, A 95811
      Telephone: (916) 446-4692
      Facsimile: (916) 447-4614


ZENITH INSURANCE: "Antonio" Suit to Recover OT, Waiting Time Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Svetlana Antonio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Zenith Insurance Company, and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 626095 (Cal.
Super., July 7, 2016), seeks recovery of damages including,
without limitation, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, waiting time
penalties, civil penalties and damages, plus interest, attorney's
fees and costs under California Labor Code, applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders, California Business and
Professions Code and Unfair Competition Law.

Defendants operated an insurance business where Plaintiff was
employed as an agent.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Solomon E. Gresen, Esq.
     Jack Risemberg, Esq.
     RGLA WYERS, LLP
     15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610
     Encino, CA 91436
     Tel: (818) 815 272
     Fax: (818) 815-2737


* Food Allergy Suits Difficult to Prosecute, Legal Experts Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
these days, diners are more attuned to what's in their food when
eating out, whether they're allergic to peanuts, seafood, or have
a sensitivity to gluten.  Restaurants and the food service
industry in general have responded in kind by asking patrons about
their allergies when they sit down to eat.

Legal experts and observers say that this has more to do with
businesses responding to public sway than it does with food
allergy lawsuits -- which they note are difficult to prosecute
because of the difficulty of proving that food servers should have
known about a particular customer's risk for an allergic reaction.

Suing a restaurant is far different from suing manufacturers that
are responsible for making sure their ingredients are explicitly
labeled, according to Philadelphia-based litigator Thomas R.
Kline.

"The food industry has done a better job of warning," Mr. Kline
said, adding, "it also holds the seller of food to a higher
standard."

Even if there hasn't been a noticeable uptick in litigation
against servers of prepared foods, Mr. Kline said greater public
consciousness of the prevalence of food allergies makes it more
likely that liability may be found if a patron has a reaction.

As a policy, wait staff are now more likely to ask diners about
their allergies, according to Bill Sullivan, an instructor in the
Hotel, Restaurant & Institutional Management department at the
University of Delaware.

"The liability comes when you're not honest with people,"
Mr. Sullivan said.  If a dish contains peanuts and a server
doesn't indicate that to someone who has expressed they have a
peanut allergy, the case is a strong one.

Mr. Sullivan said that beyond exposure to liability, restaurants
give warnings simply because it's good business.

"It's more trying to be preventative instead of running from the
law.  You have to ask the right questions," Mr. Sullivan said.

"Imagine the humiliation of someone getting sick in your
restaurant."

He noted, "The consumer is much more aware," adding that
sensitivity to customers' allergies is increasingly part of food
safety training implemented in restaurants.

"It's no longer just temperatures and storage times,"
Mr.  Sullivan said.

Brendan Flaherty -- Brendan@pritzkerlaw.com -- an attorney at
PritzkerOlson in Minneapolis, said he screens countless calls
related to allergic reactions to food, but only takes a fraction
of the cases.

One factor that makes food allergy cases so difficult is the
general lack of a long-term injury.  If a potential plaintiff has
a reaction, but sees a doctor and is fine soon thereafter, most of
the time there is no case.

"When I screen a case I look at a couple of things, is there a
clear fault, are we certain what allergen is in the food?"
Mr. Flaherty said.


* France's Draft Law on "Health Class Actions" Takes Effect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marie Albertini, Esq. -- malbertini@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith, in an article for Mondaq, reports that billed as a "major
step forward for democracy" by the French Minister of Health, the
French draft law on "health class actions", adopted on December
17, 2015, enters into force on July 1, 2016.  But it is an
unsuitable means to compensate for personal injury.  Its
complexity denies patients the speedy and efficient justice
promised and it creates legal uncertainty for professionals,
whether they are practitioners or health care manufacturers.

The 486 approved associations of users of the health system may
take legal action for the same or similar damages suffered by
users of the health system based on the breach by a producer or
supplier of a health product (drugs, contraceptives, contact
lenses, cosmetics, etc.) or a service using one of these health
products.

The action will be rolled out in two phases. In the first, the
court will determine, inter alia, the liability of the
professional for "personal injuries which may be compensated for"
and the notice measures to inform persons who may have suffered
personal injuries as a result of the breach.

Long and uncertain proceedings for users

During this first phase, three factors will significantly slow
down proceedings.  Recourse to medical and scientific experts to
establish whether the breach is attributable to the professional
from whom liability is sought will be systematic.  The notice
measures will only occur after all appeals have been exhausted.
The time limitation set by the court to join the class as a user
could be anywhere between six months and five years.

In plain language, five to ten years will elapse before the second
phase -- compensation -- can even start.  During this second
phase, users will make their claims for compensation known to the
professional held liable.  In the event the practitioner or health
care manufacturer refuses to compensate the user, individual legal
action will have to be brought.

This stage will require a new court-ordered appraisal to, on the
one hand, establish that the user's personal injury is
attributable to the health product in dispute in accordance with
the judgment rendered on liability and, on the other, to assess
damages.  If we exclude any appeals the professional might bring,
about two years will be needed to obtain an enforceable
compensation award.

In total, about seven years may elapse before a health class
action reaches its conclusion.

Legal and financial uncertainty for professionals

The Public Health Code does not provide an exhaustive list of
products in respect of which a class action may be initiated,
leaving open a wide scope of application.

There will therefore be no way for professionals to know the scope
of their legal and financial risks ahead of the legal proceedings.
Only during the second phase of proceedings will they know the
number of claimants and the amount of compensation sought.  For
five to ten years (the first phase), businesses will face
significant challenges, from an accounting perspective, in funding
their risks.

Moreover, class actions could be initiated based on health
products that are no longer on the market or for breaches that no
longer exist as of the effective date of the draft law, providing
yet more legal uncertainty for professionals.

Media pressure

Due to the media coverage it may generate, a class action is a
heavy weapon of persuasion in the hands of associations.

Faced with continued media exposure as a result of lengthy
proceedings that may cause significant damage, practitioners or
health care manufacturers may prefer to resolve disputes amicably.
In fact, mediation as an option in any class action was largely
provided for by the legislature -- which is certainly no
coincidence.

However, resorting to mediation when a media storm has been
triggered by the announcement of the launch of a class action is
too late to protect the image, reputation or market price of the
company criticized.

Also, it is regrettable that, as is required in class actions for
discrimination, prior formal notice has not been made mandatory to
allow, in the interests of health users and professionals, an
amicable and speedy resolution to be sought.









* New Santa Monica, Los Angels Leave Laws to Spur Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Geske, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Los Angeles
and Santa Monica are among several cities within California
changing the paid sick leave benefits to employees working within
their city limits.

The new requirements for both cities apply to any employee who
works at least two hours within the cities of Los Angeles and
Santa Monica.  In both cities, sick time is paid to any employee
on the 90th day of their employment and any unused time must be
paid out upon termination.

Navigating the new requirements can be a challenge for employers,
Kelly O. Scott, partner at Ervin Cohen & Jessup, told the Legal
Newsline.

"I can tell you that it's mind boggling to a lot of them,
especially when you have a business that's located in multiple
locations," he said.  "The way these things are written, you don't
even have to have a separate location, if you have employees that
are in the field and only work a couple of hours a week in one of
these municipalities, you are subject to the law."

Mr. Scott said it's a "tough standard for employers to adopt."

In Los Angeles, the new law starts on July 1 and allows all
employees to use up to 48 hours of sick time a year.  Any time
that has been accrued, but not used, must carry over to the next
year.  This can be capped at 72 hours or more.  Accrued sick time
must occur at a rate of one hour per 30 hours worked, or have the
full 48 hours given at the start of each year or 12-month period.

Under the law, employees must work for an employer in Los Angeles
for a minimum of 30 days to receive benefits, which is consistent
with California's Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act.

In Santa Monica, the law requires sick time to accrue at a rate of
one hour per 30 hours worked, or the full amount can be given at
the start of the year or 12-month period.  Unique to Santa Monica
is its sick time hours being designated by size of employer.  The
law also states that if the full amount of sick time is provided
at the beginning of the year, no carry over is required.

Both Los Angeles and Santa Monica laws state that any employee who
stops employment and is rehired within a year by the same company
must have any sick time they didn't use reinstated.

The new laws are ripe for lawsuits against employers that don't
comply, Mr. Scott said.

"These types of claims, while they can certainly be brought by
individuals, they're ideal for class actions," he said.

"You have a rule that is likely part of a policy that an employer
has that is typically going to be black and white in compliance or
black and white not in compliance.

"That allows lawyers to bring a pretty simple class action claim
that if they are not in compliance is pretty easy to win.  It's
just another thing that business have to worry about.  It's
another potential cost to doing business in this state."


* Professional Plaintiff Threatens Companies with FCRA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Carpenter, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that
Cory Groshek thought he'd caught a big fish, and he wasn't afraid
to say it.

In January 2015, Mr. Groshek sent a 2,300-word missive to
representatives for Time Warner Cable, threatening to sue for
violations of a consumer-protection law called the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.  The message relayed Mr. Groshek's confidence that
he could win a huge verdict at trial -- "think upwards of $5-10
million," he wrote -- unless the company paid him a six-figure
settlement to go away.

"Make no mistake about it," wrote Mr. Groshek, 33, of Green Bay.
"I have all of the leverage in this situation and TWC has none."

Within a recent 18-month stretch, Mr. Groshek applied to 562 jobs,
including one at Time Warner Cable.  But it doesn't appear he had
any intention of keeping a job long-term.  Instead, his aim seems
to be to catch companies violating the law during the hiring
process, so he can threaten a class-action lawsuit and demand a
settlement.

Based on newly filed court records, his plan is working.

Documents show Mr. Groshek has used the tactic to extract at least
$230,000 in legal settlements from businesses across the country.
Mr. Groshek has admitted to threatening more than 40 companies --
including about 15 headquartered in Wisconsin -- with class-action
lawsuits, leading to claims that he is extorting businesses for
technical violations of the federal law.

The full extent of Mr. Groshek's efforts largely remained in legal
shadows until late May, when Time Warner Cable's lawyers filed a
motion to dismiss the case.  In the motion, the company's lawyers
wrote that Mr. Groshek admitted during a deposition that he has
applied for hundreds of jobs, hoping to initiate the background
check process that could lead to an FCRA violation.

Under the law, companies wishing to obtain an individual's
consumer credit reports -- a routine part of the hiring process
-- must make a "clear and conspicuous disclosure" of their
intention to do so.  In the deposition, Mr. Groshek said he has
taught himself to spot when companies fail to properly make that
disclosure, burying it in fine print or several pages of forms.

If Mr. Groshek sees the violation, he threatens to sue on behalf
of all recently hired employees.  Each employee could be entitled
to up to $1,000, giving Mr. Groshek leverage to negotiate a
personal settlement.

So far, Mr. Groshek has threatened to sue at least 46 companies
that performed a background check on him.  About 20 companies paid
relatively small settlements -- between $5,000 and $35,000 -- to
cut off the threat, Mr. Groshek said.  Three companies didn't
settle and have been sued in federal court by Mr. Groshek.  Those
cases are all pending.

Lawyers representing some of the companies say Mr. Groshek is
taking advantage of a technicality, unable to prove he suffered
any harm. Officials at Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation, a
Madison-based student loan nonprofit, said Mr. Groshek's lawsuit
against them "comes down to a one-sentence liability waiver" in a
disclosure form.

"There is absolutely no indication that anyone was harmed or
confused by the sentence," company officials said in a statement
to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  The company has agreed to a
preliminary settlement of $267,600, with Mr. Groshek getting
$7,200 and nearly 900 prospective employees getting $300 each.

Lawyers for Time Warner Cable have gone further.  In a motion to
stop Mr. Groshek from leading a class-action lawsuit, they argued
Mr. Groshek doesn't care about the company's other employees, as
evidenced by his demands for settlements paid only to him.

"Here, there is not just a risk that (Groshek) will try to sell
out the class -- he has already tried to do so," lawyers for Time
Warner Cable wrote in a motion filed last year.

The technique, Time Warner Cable's lawyers wrote in June, has
become "a very successful business for Groshek."

Lawyers and business officials who work in employment law believe
there's a growing cadre of plaintiffs looking to take advantage of
FCRA violations.  According to WebRecon, a Michigan-based company
that tracks consumer litigation, nearly 400 FCRA class-action
lawsuits were filed in 2015, almost double the number filed in
2014.

So far, the plaintiffs seem to be winning.  Federal judges have
routinely refused to dismiss FCRA lawsuits.  Unable to get the
cases tossed, several companies across the country have paid out
seven-figure settlements in lawsuits just like the ones filed by
Mr. Groshek.

A 'Professional Plaintiff'

Mr. Groshek didn't return multiple telephone calls and emails
seeking comment. When reached at his home in the shadow of Lambeau
Field, he accused the Journal Sentinel of stalking him and
questioned how a reporter found his email address. (It's published
on one of his Facebook pages.)

"It's litigation where we're on the precipice of a decision going
one way or another, and it hasn't happened yet," Mr. Groshek said.
"So really, in my opinion, there is no big story."

He referred questions to his lawyers, who didn't respond to
multiple phone and email messages in the past two weeks.

Little in Mr. Groshek's background would portend his sudden
evolution into a prolific litigator.

According to his Time Warner Cable job application, which is
included in his complaint, Mr. Groshek graduated from Stevens
Point Area High School in 2001 and earned an associate's degree
from Mid-State Technical College in Wisconsin Rapids in 2003.  He
spent about 71/2 years working as a customer service
representative for WPS Health Insurance, then left in 2012 for a
similar job at Lands' End in Stevens Point.

In the meantime, Mr.  Groshek had several side gigs, largely based
on his self-burnished image.  He's the rapper Cory Crush on
Facebook, the fitness guru and video blogger Low Carb Cory on
YouTube, and the author of scary stories published online under
his legal name.

Then, in early 2014, Mr. Groshek learned about FCRA.  According to
a Time Warner Cable motion, Mr. Groshek admitted in his deposition
that he "discovered the potential to bring FCRA claims after
talking to an attorney" and "educated himself on the requirements
of the FCRA."

Mr. Groshek left Lands' End in May 2014 and became what Time
Warner Cable's lawyers termed a "professional plaintiff."

In the October 2015 deposition, Mr. Groshek said he would scour
online employment websites, such as Career Builder and Indeed, and
apply for hundreds of open positions.

When companies expressed interest in him and asked permission to
perform a background check -- typically after he received a
conditional job offer -- Mr. Groshek would watch to see if they
violated the FCRA's disclosure requirements.

Mr. Groshek believed the FCRA required a separate, single-page
disclosure of a company's intent to obtain consumer credit
reports.  Some companies, Mr. Groshek found, included the
disclosure in other documents.  Some companies included it in an
online application program.

Even if he got the job, Mr. Groshek would fail to show up for work
or quickly quit, then make his settlement demand, according to the
court documents.

During the deposition, Mr. Groshek conceded that he didn't lose
out on a job with Time Warner Cable because of a faulty background
check.  Still, Mr. Groshek said his legal rights were violated --
and that he should be compensated.

"And so in that regard," Mr.  Groshek said, "I do believe that I
did suffer, potentially, damages that could be remedied, that's
granted in a court of law."

The full transcript of Mr. Groshek's deposition is under seal,
leaving many details of his process unclear. Excerpts of the
deposition were included in recent court filings.

The Legal Battles

In court records, Mr. Groshek said he has threatened to sue
companies as big as Target and Starbucks.  He's threatened to sue
Goodwill Industries and a small business that helps veterans get
jobs.  He's threatened to sue outfits in Milwaukee and Stevens
Point and Appleton and Oshkosh.  He's threatened to sue six
companies in Brown County, including a resort located two miles
from his house, which records show he bought in December for
$140,000.

Mr. Groshek settled nearly every case without filing a lawsuit.
Time Warner Cable didn't settle, and so when Mr. Groshek filed a
class-action lawsuit, the company's lawyers could depose him and
publicly disclose some documents -- including his demand for a
settlement.

The demand email shows that Mr.  Groshek, who was offered an $11-
an-hour job with Time Warner Cable, threatened to file a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of all of the company's recent hires. It
also shows Mr. Groshek willing to abandon that plan if the company
paid him a settlement.

In the email, Mr.  Groshek trumpeted his knowledge of the FCRA,
and that he had two law firms "which intend to work in tandem to
promptly sue" Time Warner Cable if the company didn't immediately
settle.

"I understand that you may be tempted to try to make this issue
disappear for a token payment of, say, $500 to $2,500, but I will
have you know that such offers would meet my definition of
'lowball' offers, and thus will be rejected immediately,"
Mr.  Groshek said.

In court records, Time Warner Cable's lawyers have argued
Mr.  Groshek shouldn't be allowed to sue because he intentionally
initiated any alleged violations.  They've also alleged Mr.
Groshek violated state extortion laws.

The email, they wrote, "confirms that he may try to duplicitously
use their rights as 'leverage' to line his own pockets."

Mr.  Groshek's lawyers counter that Time Warner Cable continues to
"attack and vilify Mr. Groshek . . .to avoid discussing the real
issue -- its violation of the law."  They disputed the allegation
that he's a "professional plaintiff," noting he's filed only three
lawsuits.

Law On His Side?

Time Warner Cable's claim that Mr.  Groshek broke the law was met
with skepticism by Milwaukee-based U.S. District Judge Rudolph
Randa, who is presiding over the case.

In a July 2015 order on Time Warner Cable's motion to deny class-
action status, Judge Randa wrote he "doubts that the Milwaukee
County District Attorney would devote time and resources to
prosecuting Mr.  Groshek on the tenuous theory that a pre-suit
settlement demand qualifies as extortion."  Judge Randa also noted
that any pre-suit settlement wouldn't have stopped other Time
Warner Cable employees from suing the company.

And as Madison-based U.S. District Judge James Peterson, who is
presiding over the Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation case,
wrote in a November 2015 order, the courts have been split on the
merits of such FCRA claims.  He wrote that "a substantial majority
of cases that have considered the issue have gone Groshek's way."

Indeed, several companies across the nation have received
unfavorable rulings and ended up settling class-action FCRA cases.
Swift Transportation paid out $4.4 million. Home Depot shelled out
$3 million. Domino's settled for $2.5 million.

Melissa Sorenson, executive director for the National Association
of Professional Background Screeners, said the settlements have
emboldened plaintiffs and their lawyers, leading to a notable
increase in FCRA class-action lawsuits in the past several years.

"As soon as you have settlements in the millions of dollars, it
certainly opens up interests in class-action lawsuits,"
Ms. Sorenson said.  "And it's opened up an entire area of
practice."

She added that companies often settle because it's cheaper than
taking the case to trial, with the risk of a jury, particularly if
the business has insurance to cover the costs.

No future court dates have been set in Mr. Groshek's case against
Time Warner Cable, which is preliminarily scheduled for trial in
February.  Judging by his email to Time Warner Cable's lawyers,
Mr. Groshek has little doubt that he'd prevail should his case
ever reach a jury.

"I would prefer that we avoid what could be a multi-year trial,"
Mr. Groshek wrote.  "But if TWC wishes to be combative and fight a
losing battle, I am more than willing to do whatever is necessary
to see that justice is served in this situation."

What Is The FCRA?

Enacted in 1970, the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a consumer
protection law that sets out rules for credit reporting agencies.
The law promotes accurate reporting and dissemination of consumer
report information, such as credit histories, and gives citizens
certain privacy rights.  In part, the law restricts employers from
obtaining the credit reports of individuals without their consent.
It also gives citizens the right to dispute information contained
in their credit report and requires credit reporting agencies to
change incorrect information.

The Part Of The Law That Is Cited

". . . A person may not procure a consumer report, or cause a
consumer report to be procured, for employment purposes with
respect to any consumer, unless a clear and conspicuous disclosure
has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the
report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that
consists solely of the disclosure ..."

A Look At The Legal Filings

In recent years, Corey Groshek of Green Bay has threatened to sue
at least 46 companies that performed a background check on him.
About 20 companies paid relatively small settlements, according to
documents filed in federal court. Three companies didn't settle
and have been sued in federal court by Mr.  Groshek.  Those cases
are all pending.

Companies that have been sued:

   -- Alliance Hospitality Management
   -- Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation
   -- Time Warner Cable

Wisconsin-based companies threatened with a lawsuit:

   -- Alta Resources (Neenah)
   -- Ardor Agency (Greenfield)
   -- Associated Bank (Green Bay)
   -- Bay Event Marketing (De Pere)
   -- Eastbay (Wausau)
   -- ImproMed (Oshkosh)
   -- Lands' End (Dodgeville)
   -- Ministry Health Care (Milwaukee)
   -- Shopko (Green Bay)
   -- Team Schierl Companies (Stevens Point)

   -- Total Med Staffing (Appleton)
   -- Travel Guard (Stevens Point)
   -- Tundra Lodge (Green Bay)
   -- Wisconsin Auto Title Loans (Green Bay)
   -- Yanda's Distributing (Green Bay)

Notable national companies threatened with a lawsuit:

   -- Burlington Coat Factory
   -- Goodwill Industries
   -- hhgregg
   -- Humana
   -- Nielsen
   -- Sherwin-Williams
   -- Starbucks
   -- Target
   -- Toys R' Us
   -- U.S. Cellular


* Queensland Law Society Calls for Class Actions Reform
-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Poulos, Esq. -- elizabeth.poulos@hsf.com -- Bianca
Janovic, Esq., and Alice McDonald, Esq. Herbert Smith Freehills
LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that the Supreme Court of
Queensland currently has no jurisdiction to hear class actions,
but the issue is back in the spotlight following renewed calls
from the Queensland Law Society for class actions reform.

In a recent article, Queensland Law Society President Bill Potts
voiced strong support for the introduction of a class action
regime in Queensland and indicated that such reform would also
have the backing of the Queensland Bar Association, many judges
and solicitors.  According to Mr. Potts, class actions are 'often
the only way that poorly-resourced victims of disasters and other
tragedies can uphold their rights'.

Current state of class actions in Queensland

Class action reform has taken a back seat since January 2015, when
a Bill tabled in the Queensland Parliament to address the issue
lapsed.  That Bill proposed to amend the Civil Proceedings Act
2011 to introduce a comprehensive statutory regime to facilitate
the effective conduct and management of class actions in
Queensland.1

The renewed focus on Queensland's lack of a class actions
structure comes as the plaintiffs in the class action concerning
the 2011 Queensland floods (commenced in the Supreme Court of
New South Wales in July 2014) continue to face delays in their
proceeding.  A trial has now been scheduled for October 2017, more
than three years after the proceeding was commenced.

Central to Mr. Potts' case for reform is that Queenslanders
"shouldn't have to go to another state to get fair compensation
when we have suffered harm", as Queensland fails to keep pace with
other Australian jurisdictions in this area of law.

The Federal Court first introduced its representative proceedings
framework in 1992 and the Supreme Courts of Victoria and
New South Wales followed suit in 2000 and 2011, respectively.
Western Australia also looks set to develop a proposal for a
legislative class actions regime, following the release of a
report on representative proceedings from its Law Reform
Commission last year.

Barrister and Professor of Law at the University of Sydney, Dr
Peter Cashman, argues that "Queensland law and practice has failed
to keep up with national and international developments" while Mr.
Potts characterizes the lack of regime as 'an access to justice
issue for Queenslanders'.

Arguments for and against establishing a class action regime

Mr. Potts considers that if the current ALP Government proposed a
statutory class actions regime, it would likely have bipartisan
support given the original 2014 bill was drafted by the LNP.

It remains to be seen whether and how the Queensland Parliament
will respond to this latest bid to put class action reform back on
the State's agenda.


* UCI Civil Justice Center Gets Funding for Class Action Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Chan, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a new Civil
Justice Research Institute expected to open this fall at the UC
Irvine School of Law will be getting more than a half-million
dollars in funding from Newport Beach class-action attorney
Richard Bridgford and litigation funder Bentham IMF.

Bentham, which has locations in New York, Los Angeles and San
Francisco, has committed $300,000, while Mr. Bridgford pledged a
$250,000 investment.

Overall, the institute has $1 million in funding.

The institute, led by the law school's dean, Erwin Chemerinsky,
will research factors that may limit access to America's court
system.  Those factors include inadequate funding of state and
local courts, restrictions on class-action lawsuits and limits on
punitive damages, according to a news release.

Mr. Chemerinsky said the institute will give students a chance to
participate in "cutting-edge research."

"We're excited to be joining Dean Chemerinsky and UC Irvine School
of Law in taking a disciplined look at the economic distortions in
our system," Allison Chock, head of Bentham's Los Angeles office,
said in a statement.  "The institute will also look to the
remedies that can help level the judicial playing field for
litigants."

Bentham plans to be part of the institute's advisory board.

Mr. Bridgford, founding partner of Bridgford, Gleason & Artinian
in Newport Beach, was a sponsor of the law school's 2015 Public
Service Award dinner that honored U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Mr. Bridgford did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

                            *********

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  * * *