CAR_Public/160721.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 21, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 145




                            Headlines


ABM INDUSTRIES: California Supreme Court Appeal Pending
ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Not Yet Set
AFFINITYLIFESTYLES: Says Group Fishing for Class Action Clients
ALAMOWING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Suit Claims
AMERICAN CASING: "Bartkowiak" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA

AVENUE STORES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Perri" Suit Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Sought in "Childress" Suit
BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Complaint Pending
BARRETT BUSINESS: Reply to Opposition to Dismissal Bid Due July 25
BEAR STEARNS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of SRM Global Suit

BEST BUY: 8th Cir. Reversed Class Certification Order
BILLABONG: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $45 Million
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Fails to Warn of Concussion Risks, Suits Claim
CALIFORNIA: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in "Schwarz" Vacated
CALIFORNIA: Dept. of Industrial Relations Faces Discrim. Suit

CANADA POST: Worker Seeks to Launch Healthcare Costs Class Suit
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Securities Class Suits Pending in C.D. Cal.
CASH AMERICA: Directors Sued Over Merger to First Cash
CHUNG HUA: Faces "Sun" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
COMMAND SECURITY: Settlement to Be Administered within 2 Years

CONN APPLIANCES: Faces "Gerlach" Suit in W.D. Tex.
CORAL TELL: Continues to Defend Class Action in Israel
COX LAW: Certification of FDCPA Class Sought in "Johnson" Suit
CRAIG HAMILTON: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Rowe" Suit
DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Suit Over Tax Foreclosures

DOHERY ENTERPRISES: "Friscia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in 2011 FLSA Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Settlement Reached in ASM's 2013 and 2014 Suits
DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Center Employee's OT Pay Suit Removed
DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager's Suit Pending in Calif.

DOLLAR TREE: Former ASMs's Nov. 2015 Suit Stayed
DOLLAR TREE: Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Pending in Fla.
DOLLAR TREE: Background Check Suit Pending in Florida
DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Female Store Managers in Discovery
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Ex-Employee's PAGA Claims Pending

DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Ex-Employee to Seek Stay Relief
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Ex-Employee's FCRA Suit Pending
DR. REDDY'S: Defending Class Suit Over Reimbursement Practices
EOG RESOURCES: "Gabrielson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FABFITFUN INC: Faces "Byerson" Class Suit in N. Dist. Illinois

FACEBOOK INC: US Terror Victims Sue Over Hamas Posts
FANTASY FAR: "Girard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FCA US: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Fiat C635 Manual Transmission
FOWLER PACKING: Calif. Labor Law Objections Tossed
GENCO INC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ortiz" Suit Claims

GENERAL MOTORS: Newco Fails to Shake Off Ignition-Switch Claims
GRUBHUB INC: Must Defend Against Drivers' Suit
GULF COAST TRANSPORTATION: Francois Seeks Certification of Class
HAWK II: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Inaccurate Wages Statements
HCR MANORCARE: Faces Shareholders Suit Over Mismanagement

HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Hypolite" Suit Says
HSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Damron" Suit in Fla. Over Automated Calls
HUNTER INDUSTRIES: Faces "King" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
INTELLICURE INC: Holt Seeks Certification of 3 TCPA/ICFA Classes

INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Class Action Parties Engaged in Discovery
JENNINGS, MO: To Pay $4.7MM to Settle Suit Over Court Debts
JPMORGAN CHASE: Certification of Class Sought in "Shore" Suit
KOPPERS INC: "Trotter" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under AMWA
L G DIEGO: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

LAGOON LINENS: Rosenberg Seeks Submission of Inventory Records
LG ELECTRONICS: Parens Patriae Suit Not Barred, Court Says
LIFETOUCH NATIONAL: Manemett Seeks Back Pay Damages Under FLSA
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Fairness Hearing in "Brown" Suit on Oct. 31
LUCRAZON GLOBAL: Sued Over Alleged Ponzi Schemes

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Steele" Class Suit in Ontario Pending
MAGIC MEMORIES: "Berry" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code
MAS CAPITAL: Faces "Mubarez" Suit Over MOU Breach
MDL 1917: Deal with Philips, Panasonic et al. Has Final Okay
MDL 1917: Best Buy Expects to Receive $34MM from Settlement

MDL 1950: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
MDL 1950: West Virginia Drops Claims Against Natixis Defendants
MDL 1950: Status Report on Remaining Claims Due Aug. 12
MEDICAL RECORD: Illegally Overcharges Postage, "Spadea" Suit Says
MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Has Agreements to Settle 3,900 INFUSE Claims

MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Reached Agreements to Settle 6,200 Mesh Claims
MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling Expected in 2017
MEMORIAL HERMANN: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
MEMPHIS LIGHT GAS: Faces "Everett" Privacy Class Suit
MENDEZ FUEL: "Larios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA

MITEL NETWORKS: Solak v. Leav Lawsuit Filed Over Merger Deal
MONTEBELLO PLASTICS: Martinez Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Code
MTAS INC: "Marcello" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
NEW PRIME: Faces "Shibley" Suit in E.D. Cal.
NORRISTOWN STATE: Executes Plan Under Mental Health Settlement

NUCOR CORPORATION: Steel Antitrust Suit Still Pending
ORACLE CORPORATION: Sue in Cal. Over Imprudent Plan Investment
PACKERS SANITATION: James Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code
PANDORA MEDIA: Free User Can't Pursue Privacy Claim, Court Says
PATCO ELECTRICAL: "Roberts" Suits Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

PATH INC: Intrusion Upload Class Certified in "Opperman" Suit
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Updates on Dental Supplies Lawsuit
PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Faces "D'Aversa" Class Suit in Dist. New Jersey
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Parnes" Suit Says
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Pollutes South Portland's Air, Suit Claims

PRODUCTION TESTING: "Pamintuan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
QUIKRETE COMPANIES: "Nolen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
RANOR INC: Seeks Dismissal of Massachusetts Wage and Hour Suit
RAY ENTERPRISES: Faces "Musto" Class Suit in Dist. New Jersey
REMINGTON ARMS: Settlement Hearing in "Pollard" Suit on Aug. 2

RITA'S WATER: Brown Seeks Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement
SAIGON BAR: Faces "Shao" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SALOV NORTH: Class of Olive Oil Buyers Certified in "Kumar" Suit
SAN JOSE, CA: Trump Supporters Sue Police Over Political Rally
SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Galvan Seeks Certification of Two FLSA Classes

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Certify "McLendon" Class Denied
SHERWIN P. ROBIN: Faces "Thomas" Suit in N.D. Ga.
SOONER HOLDINGS: Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
SOUTH CAROLINA: Takes Steps to Ensure Foster Children's Safety
SNAPCHAT: Sexually Explicit Material to Minors, Suit Alleges

SPROUTS FARMERS: "Price" Suit Transferred to Arizona District
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces Concussion Class Action
STUDENT LOAN: Sued in Cal. Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TAILORED BRANDS: To Defend Against "Makhlouf" Class Action
TAILORED BRANDS: Lucas Files Notice of Dismissal

TARGET CORP: Used Retirees' Money for Stock Buyback, Suit Says
TEN TWENTY: Faces "Razo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
THERANOS INC: CEO Slow to Disclose Problems to Employees
THERANOS INC: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Blood Test Results
TOYOTA MOTOR: Economic Loss Class Actions at Early Stage

TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeal Over Non-Recalled Vehicle Claims Pending
TREASURY WINE: Escapes Class Suit Over Litigator's Abuse
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Unseal Video Depositions, Media Insists
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: July 22 Hearing on Motion to Decertify Class
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Gunn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Lathan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Secretly Investigated Plaintiff, Lawyers
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement with Blind Users Wins Approval
UNITED STATES: Asylum-Seekers Not Given Due Process, Suit Says
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Sued in E.D. Cal. Over Automated Calls

VAHANA SALES: "Martinez" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
VALVE CORP: Promotes Gambling, Florida Class Suits Allege
VIRGINIA: Faces Suit Over Suspension of Driver's Licence
VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Prosecutors Widen Emissions Cheating Probe
VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Decide on Suspension of 32 Models in Korea

WAL-MART STORES: Ex-Female Workers Balk at Gender Bias Suit Deal
WASHINGTON: Court Paves Way for Patients to Get Hepatitis C Drug
WATER TOWER: Illegally Holds Security Deposit, "Parker" Suit Says
WEST MORGAN-EAST: Compliance with Open Meeting Law Questioned
YURIY PRAKHIN: Faces "Grinberg" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

* Recent Securities Class Action Rulings Favorable for Defendants


                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: California Supreme Court Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated 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 no date has been
set for oral argument in a class action appeal before the
California Supreme Court.

The appeal is from the ruling in the Consolidated Cases of
Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services,
filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County (the "Augustus case").  The Augustus case is a
certified class action involving alleged violations of certain
California state laws relating to rest breaks. The case centers on
whether requiring security guards to remain on call during rest
breaks violated Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code.

On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on the rest break claim, and on July 31, 2012, the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior
Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $89.7 million (the "common fund"). Subsequently, the
Superior Court also awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of
approximately $4.5 million in addition to approximately 30% of the
$89.7 million common fund.

The Company said, "We appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the
Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate
District (the "Appeals Court"). On December 31, 2014, the Appeals
Court issued its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and vacating the award of $89.7 million in damages and
the attorneys' fees award. Plaintiffs requested rehearing of the
Appeals Court's decision to reverse the judgment in favor of
plaintiffs and vacate the damages award."

"On January 29, 2015, the Appeals Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for rehearing, modified its December 31, 2014 opinion, and
certified the opinion for publication. The Appeals Court opinion
held that "on-call rest breaks are permissible" and remaining on
call during rest breaks does not render the rest breaks invalid
under California law. The Appeals Court explained that "although
on-call hours constitute 'hours worked,' remaining available to
work is not the same as performing work. . . .  Section 226.7
proscribes only work on a rest break." The plaintiffs filed a
petition for review with the California Supreme Court on March 4,
2015, and on April 29, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted
the plaintiffs' petition. No date has been set for oral argument.
We believe that the Appeals Court correctly ruled in our favor,
and we look forward to presenting our arguments to the California
Supreme Court."


ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Not Yet Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated 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 oral argument
relating to a class action appeal has not been scheduled.

The appeal is from the ruling in the consolidated cases of Bucio
and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (the
"Bucio case").

The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations
that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19,
2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial
court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification
issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the
decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed
their appellate brief on the class certification issues. We filed
our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument relating
to the appeal has not been scheduled.


AFFINITYLIFESTYLES: Says Group Fishing for Class Action Clients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
Nevada water retailer claims in court that a consumer advocacy
group defamed it while fishing for class action clients in Las
Vegas against it.

AffinityLifeStyles dba Real Water sued Gold Shield Group on July
14, in Clark County Court. It claims the New Jersey-based
defendant's website accused Real Water of making false claims and
running a "scam" on consumers of its Real Alkalized Water
products.

Gold Shield Group states on its Internet home page, checked July
14, morning: "Gold Shield Group connects people who have been
wronged by large corporations with quality legal representation."

In its lawsuit, Real Water cites Gold Shield's July 12 Internet
post on www.realwaterscam.com, a separate page from Gold Shield's
home page.  The headline on the cached Internet page states: "If
you bought Real Water for its health claims, you may be entitled
to money damages."  The cached Google page was inaccessible July
13 evening and July 14 morning. Gold Shield did not return an
email message seeking comment through its website's contact form.

The cached page lists a working Gold Shield toll-free number for
potential class action clients. A Wednesday evening phone call was
answered by a man who asked how the caller learned about making a
class action claim.  The cached Web page stated, inter alia: "If
you bought Real Water believing that it had special health
benefits, you've been scammed. Call the Gold Shield Group at
(888)294- 3155 to get the legal compensation you deserve."

The cached Web page added: "While Gold Shield Group does not
provide legal advice, we do connect some people with law firms
qualified to help. Information submitted to Gold Shield Group via
phone or web form will be reviewed by a legal professional to
determine whether they can help you with your situation. A legal
professional may contact you to get more information."

The 2-page letter on the cached site says Real Water uses "pseudo-
science printed on their bottles and listed on their web site
[which] is nothing more than a clever marketing tactic."  It adds:
"The claim that Real Water 'is infused with negative (-) ions' is
not scientifically possible. . . .

"The claim on the bottle's packaging that it can 'neutralize
harmful free radicals' because of the antioxidant electrons in the
water is blatantly false because there is no such thing as stable
negative ion water," Gold Shield said on the page.

In its lawsuit, Real Water says its "alkaline-infused" water is
its only product, and the defamatory campaign by Gold Shield is
"particularly damaging."

Real Water says its "existing and prospective customers now
encounter false, misleading and defamatory statements that
negatively influence and forever poison the consumers' impressions
of Real Water," which has "experienced a disinterest among
prospective customers" and "irreparable harm" as a result.

Real Water seeks an injunction and punitive damages for false
advertising, defamation, commercial disparagement, deceptive trade
and interference with prospective economic advantage.

It is represented by Josh Aicklen --
Josh.Aicklen@lewisbrisbois.com -- with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith, who did not return a phone call seeking comment on July 13.

In a separate federal lawsuit, a former worker for Real Water
accused the company of being a front for the Church of Scientology
and claims she was fired for refusing to convert.

That case awaits trial in Las Vegas.


ALAMOWING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that thirty-nine AlamoWing
restaurants in three state, all franchises of nonparty Buffalo
Wild Wings, paid servers and bartenders less than minimum wage, a
class action claims in San Antonio Federal Court.


AMERICAN CASING: "Bartkowiak" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Bartkowiak, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American Casing & Equipment, Inc., and Steve
Larvick, Case No. 1:16-cv-00265-CSM (D.N.D, July 8, 2016), seeks
overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants employ non-exempt casing operators, relief casing
operators, clean and drift operators, floor hands, casing hands,
clean and drift hands, casers and other non-exempt employees to
help perform casing services, but fail to provide them proper
overtime pay.

The Defendants are involved in oilfield casing services in
oilfields throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1040
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 790 4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

               - and -

          Jesse Forester, Esq.
          Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
          1801 N. Lamar St., Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          E-mail: forester@l-b-law.com
                  jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


AVENUE STORES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Perri" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Perri, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Avenue Stores, LLC, Case No. 2016CH08496
(Ill. Cir. Ct., June 24, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful
practice of making unauthorized text message and calls to
consumers' cellular telephones and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct.

Avenue Stores, LLC is a retail clothing company that distributes,
markets, and sells its apparel to thousands of consumers in
Illinois and across the nation through its retail stores, on its
website, and via text message marketing, and which operates retail
stores located throughout Illinois and the rest of the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 893-7002
      Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
      E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
              emeyers@mcgpc.com
              eturin@mcgpc.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Sought in "Childress" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned GARY and ANNE CHILDRESS,
THOMAS and ADRIENNE BOLTON, and STEVEN and MORGAN LUMBLEY on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and FIA CARD SERVICES,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00231-BO (E.D.N.C.), move the Court for an order
certifying this class:

     All persons who at any time on or after September 11, 2001,
     had an interest-bearing obligation to Defendants which was
     subject to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C.
     Section 3901 et seq. ("SCRA") or Defendants' proprietary
     SCRA program, and who during such time were charged an
     interest rate of 6% or more on such obligation, but
     excluding persons who have executed a release of the rights
     claimed herein.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as
Representative Plaintiffs for the Class, and appoint Smith &
Lowney PLLC as Class Counsel and Shanahan Law Group PLLC as Local
Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kieran J. Shanahan, Esq.
          Brandon S. Neuman, Esq.
          Christopher S. Battles, Esq.
          SHANAHAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          128 E. Hargett Street, Third Floor
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 856-9494
          Facsimile: (919) 856-9499
          E-mail: kieran@shanahanlawgroup.com
                  bneuman@shanahanlawgroup.com
                  cbattles@shanahanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC
          2317 E. John Street
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Telephone: (206) 860-2883
          Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
          E-mail: knoll@igc.org


BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that the Company's second motion
to dismiss an amended complaint in the PIN Pad Litigation remains
pending.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including
damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were
transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single
consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its
entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended
complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That
motion is pending.

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


BARRETT BUSINESS: Reply to Opposition to Dismissal Bid Due July 25
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs'
opposition to the motion to dismiss was due June 27, 2016, and any
reply is due July 25, 2016.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against BBSI, Michael L. Elich, BBSI's Chief Executive
Officer, and James D. Miller, BBSI's then Chief Financial Officer.
The action purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all
Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities
laws. The claims arose from the decline in the market price for
BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased
workers compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit sought
compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial),
plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and
expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint named
the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserted similar
claims for relief.

Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint named
the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserted
similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three
cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject
matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The
consolidated cases were recaptioned as In re Barrett Business
Services Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the
Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and
Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. Discovery has not been
undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a
consolidated amended complaint, naming BBSI, Elich and Miller as
defendants. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.

On November 23, 2015, before the court had ruled on the motion to
dismiss, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint,
naming the same defendants. The first amended consolidated
complaint included new allegations relating to disclosures in
BBSI's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 9, 2015.

On February 16, 2016, BBSI filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended consolidated complaint. That same day, Messrs. Elich and
Miller, through separate counsel, also filed motions to dismiss
the first amended consolidated complaint, adopting BBSI's motion
in its entirety.

On March 21, 2016, before the court had ruled on the motion to
dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint, plaintiffs filed
a second amended consolidated complaint, naming the same
defendants. The second amended consolidated complaint dropped
certain allegations from the first amended complaint and added new
allegations relating to disclosures in BBSI's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed on March 9, 2016. Among other disclosures, BBSI
reported that (1) previously issued financial statements could not
be relied on, (2) Mr. Miller had reported making unsupported
journal entries, (3) Mr. Miller's employment had been terminated,
and (4) BBSI was in the process of engaging a Big Four accounting
firm to conduct an independent forensic accounting investigation.

BBSI responded to the second amended consolidated complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2016. Messrs. Elich and
Miller joined in that motion. Under the current briefing schedule
ordered by the court, plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to
dismiss was due June 27, 2016, and any reply is due July 25, 2016.


BEAR STEARNS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of SRM Global Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on July 14, affirmed dismissal of a time-
barred securities fraud suit by SRM Global Master Fund Limited
Partnership against Bear Stearns, which collapsed in 2008 and
settled class-action claims in Manhattan years ago.

According to the Decision, "This appeal arises from the collapse
of Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (with its successor, defendant Bear
Stearns Companies L.L.C., "Bear") and the lawsuit filed by SRM
Global Master Fund Limited Partnership ("SRM"), a registered
private investment fund, against Bear, Bear's officers, and Bear's
auditor, defendant Deloitte & Touche L.L.P. ("Deloitte"). The
principal question presented is whether the class action tolling
rule set forth in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414
U.S. 538 (1974), applies to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1658(b)(2), the five-
year statute of repose that limits the time in which plaintiffs
may bring claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Sec. 240.10b-5, see Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633, 650
(2010). We hold that American Pipe tolling does not apply to Sec.
1658(b)(2). . . .  [W]e also conclude that SRM failed adequately
to allege that it relied on any misrepresentations in making
investment decisions, an element of its common law fraud claims."

A copy of the decision is available at https://is.gd/knsWju from
Leagle.com.

The case is captioned, SRM GLOBAL MASTER FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiff- Appellant, v. BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES L.L.C. F/K/A
BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES INC., ALAN D. SCHWARTZ, SAMUEL L. OLINARO,
JR., JAMES CAYNE, WARREN SPECTOR, DELOITTE & TOUCHE L.L.P., No.
14-507-cv (2nd Cir.).


BEST BUY: 8th Cir. Reversed Class Certification Order
-----------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals has reversed the class certification order in the case,
IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al.

The Company said, "In February 2011, a purported class action
lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et
al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This
federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to
the public. Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class
action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us
and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July
2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and
Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and
served. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal
2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with
prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter
or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October
2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the
court's decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such
decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff did in October 2012. We filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive
pleadings were filed in December 2012. A hearing was held on April
26, 2013."

"On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion
to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying
the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the
statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking
statements and therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor"
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA). Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. By Order
filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of persons or
entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT
on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and who were damaged
by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
granted our request for interlocutory appeal. Oral argument was
held in October 2015.

"On April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the trial court
misapplied the law and reversed the class certification order.
IBEW petitioned the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which was
denied on June 1, 2016. That Petition is pending. We continue to
believe that these allegations are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend our company in this matter."

Best Buy Co., is a provider of technology products, services and
solutions.


BILLABONG: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $45 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Billabong will pay $45 million to settle a shareholder class
action over the timing of earnings downgrades that sparked massive
share price falls in 2011.

The surfwear company said the settlement was not an admission of
liability and that it would have no material impact because it had
already been included in previous financial results.

The settlement includes interest, litigation costs and the legal
fees of the investors in the class action.

The class action was brought by Slater and Gordon, which confirmed
the settlement with Billabong.  The settlement still needs to be
approved by the Federal Court.

The allegations in the class action related to Billabong's shock
August 19, 2011 announcement that it would not meet its earnings
guidance.

Billabong had told the market six months earlier it expected to
return earnings per share growth rate of more than 10 per cent per
annum in the second half of the 2011 financial year and for the
full year.

The announcement sliced 33 per cent off the company's share price
between August 19 and August 22, with its shares diving from $5.15
to $3.46.

A second announcement in December 19 that the company no long
expected strong underlying growth in its earnings and instead
expected its earnings performance for the first half of full-year
2012 to be between 20 and 26 per cent below its first-half 2011
performance.

The December revelation wiped more off Billabong's share price
from $3.64 to $1.77 -- a fall of about 51 per cent.

Slater & Gordon had alleged Billabong had engaged in misleading
and deceptive conduct and had fallen short of its continuous
disclosure obligations by releasing guidance without a reasonable
basis.

"Any financial impact of this agreement on the company was not
material and has already been paid and provided in previous
financial reports," Billabong said in a statement to the
Australian Securities Exchange.

"Therefore, there is no impact on Billabong's immediate or future
cashflows or earnings reports as a result of this settlement."


BRIGHAM YOUNG: Fails to Warn of Concussion Risks, Suits Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Brigham Young University,
Stanford, Wake Forest University, their athletic conferences and
the National Collegiate Athletic Association are the latest to
face federal class actions accusing them of knowing but failing to
warn college football players of the long-term risks of
concussions, in Denver, San Francisco and Indianapolis.


CALIFORNIA: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in "Schwarz" Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court entered a civil minutes in the lawsuit titled BENJAMIN
SCHWARZ, ET AL. V. ERWIN MEINBERG, ET AL., Case No. CV 13-00356-
BRO (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), relating to issues before the Honorable
Beverly Reid O'Connell.  The order was issued regarding the
parties' briefs on current status of the Case after remand by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Judge O'Connell orders that the class action certification
proceedings in the matter are stayed until the Court has issued an
order concerning the Defendants' forthcoming motion for summary
judgment.  Accordingly, the upcoming hearing on the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification is vacated.

The Defendants are ordered to submit any motion for summary
judgment, limited to the issue of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, by August 29, 2016.  The Plaintiff is ordered to file
his opposition no later than September 12.  The Defendants' reply
must be filed no later than September 19.  The hearing on the
motion for summary judgment will take place on October 3, 2016, at
1:30 p.m.  Until the motion for summary judgment is decided, all
discovery requests are limited to the issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

The Court also orders the parties to meet and confer about
scheduling an in-person deposition of the Plaintiff, or in the
alternative, scheduling a deposition via remote video technology.

Plaintiff Benjamin Schwarz was a federal inmate incarcerated in
the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center in California from
August 11, 2009, to October 20, 2010.  The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment
constitutional rights during his incarceration at MDCLA.

Defendant Erwin Meinberg was acting Warden at MDCLA from Aug. 11,
2009, to October 20, 2010.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6mW7LbRG


CALIFORNIA: Dept. of Industrial Relations Faces Discrim. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE PAGE; DORENE HANSEN; LETICIA GONZALEZ, and SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL, the
Plaintiffs, v. ACTING ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION GEORGE PARISOTTO, in his official capacity;
THE DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION; DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS CHRISTINE BAKER, in her official capacity; THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; THE WORKERS'
COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS FRANK M. BRASS, DEIDRA E. LOWE, JOSE H. RAZO, MARGUERITE
SWEENEY, AND KATHERINE ZALEWSKI, in their official capacities;
SECRETARY OF THE LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DAVID
LANIER, in his official capacity, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC625992 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 6, 2016),
seeks judicial recognition of an unlawful sex discrimination
suffered by Plaintiffs, and seeks a systemic reform of the
workers' compensation system.

Defendants' alleged failure to adequately train, educate, and
discipline Qualified Medical Examiners (QMEs), Disability
Evaluation Unit employees, and Administrative Law Judges
concerning gender discrimination in the workers' compensation
system's permanent disability assessments causes Plaintiffs to be
denied their constitutionally protected right to be free from
discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the federal
Constitution. The Defendants' failure to ensure that workers'
compensation apportionment procedures, as administered, do not
discriminate on the basis of gender has proximately caused the
Plaintiffs to be deprived of their constitutionally protected
right to be free from impermissible gender-based classifications.

The Division provides compensation, safety and health promotion
and training, consultation and information services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn A. Eidmann, Esq.
          Anne Hudson-Price, Esq.
          PUBLIC COUNSEL
          610 S. Ardmore Ave
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: (213) 385 2977
          Facsimile: (213) 385 9089
          E-mail: keidmann@publiccounsel.org
                  aprice@publiccounsel.org

               - and -

          Robyn C. Crowther, Esq.
          FeiFei B.Jiang, Esq.
          CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC
          725 South FigueroaStreet, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5524
          Telephone: (213) 629 9040
          Facsimile: (213) 629 9022
          E-mail: crowther@caldwell-leslie.com
                  jiang@caldwell-leslie.com

               - and -

          Nicole Gina Berner, Esq.
          SERVICE EMPLOYEES
          INTERNATIONALUNION
          1800 Massachusetts Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 730 7383
          E-mail: nicole.berner@seiu.org

                           *     *     *

Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that California's workers' compensation system so overtly
discriminates against women it classifies loss of a breast to
cancer as zero to 5 percent disability -- and 5 percent only for
women of child-bearing age, women say in a class action against
the state.

Workers' comp benefits for some injuries are reduced "on the basis
that the female gender itself or female reproductive biology is a
'risk factor' or a 'predisposing condition,'" according to the
lawsuit filed on behalf of as many as 11,000 injured workers.

For instance, many women with carpal tunnel syndrome receive
reduced benefits because workers' comp examiners say that being
female predisposes them to the painful condition, the lawsuit
states.

A woman past child-bearing age may get no benefits at all for
having had a mastectomy because of work-related breast cancer,
while a man who had his prostate removed would get benefits,
according to the complaint.

"California's system of workers' compensation perpetuates the type
of overt sex discrimination that is a relic of a past era,"
according to the July 6 Superior Court complaint. "It deprives
women workers of fair compensation on the basis of stereotypes
about gender and women's reproductive biology."

Defendants include the California Department of Industrial
Relations, the Division of Workers' Compensation, the Workers'
Compensation Appeals Board, and the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency.

The state's institutional bias contributes to "the impoverishment
of women workers and their families," plaintiffs' attorney Kathryn
Eidmann of Public Counsel said in a statement. "Women workers in
California neither receive equal pay for equal work, nor equal
payouts when they're injured on the job."

Hours after the complaint was filed, defendant Christine Baker,
director of the Department of Industrial Relations department,
blasted the "sweeping allegations" as "misleading and superficial"
and vowed to "vigorously defend the workers' compensation system
against these unfounded accusations."

Baker said in a statement that the plaintiffs sent her a demand
letter in April and she asked for more information to substantiate
specific claims, but instead of answering, they sued.

"We can only surmise that the plaintiffs' counsel's refusal to
identify and address any evidence of gender-based discrimination
and their inflammatory claims of systemic gender bias are part of
a larger agenda -- one that is intended to undermine the system
and undo successful workers' compensation reforms that have
increased benefits, controlled costs and improved care," Baker
said.

But plaintiffs' co-counsel Catherine Fisk, a professor of labor
law at UC-Irvine School of Law, said the Industrial Relations
Department's response to the demand letter "reflected a dismissal
of the problem."

Providing more information "wasn't going to persuade them, but it
would run out the statute of limitations on some of these claims,"
she said.

The case involves workers whose work-related injuries or
conditions have been classified as permanent. They are evaluated
by doctors known as "qualified medical examiners," or QMEs.

The examiners are "overwhelmingly male -- in some areas and
specialties, for example, less than 3 percent of the medical
evaluators are women," the complaint states.

The examiners begin by giving workers "impairment ratings." For
example, someone able to work only a one-fourth as much as
previously might get an impairment rating of 75 percent. Those
ratings must be based on detailed guidelines from the American
Medical Association.

Next, examiners assign the workers "apportionment determinations,"
to indicate what percentage of the permanent disability was caused
by the job rather than other factors, such as a pre-existing
illness.

Two plaintiffs -- Janice Page and Doreen Hansen -- worked many
years as law enforcement officers. Both had mastectomies to treat
breast cancer caused, they say, by toxic chemicals to which they
were exposed on the job.

But following the AMA guidelines, their qualified medical
examiners gave each of them permanent disability ratings of zero
percent: "no long-term physical loss or impact on future earning
capacity," according to the lawsuit.

"This disability rating has no rational relationship to the
profound physical, psychological, and emotional consequences that
surviving breast cancer and a mastectomy can entail," the
complaint states. "It is predicated on gender bias, disregard for
women's bodies, and stereotypes about women's roles as mothers."

The latest edition of AMA guidelines does give higher ratings to
mastectomy patients. But the previous edition is still used by
California: It allows a 5 percent impairment rating only for women
of child-bearing age.

"This rating scheme reflects a judgment that a woman's breast has
no value, except to enable women to breastfeed children," the
complaint states.

Lead plaintiff Leticia Gonzalez developed severe carpal tunnel
syndrome from 17 years working at a computer terminal for a
telecommunications company. When she applied for benefits, the QME
found that her condition "is almost ubiquitous in the female
population in her age demographic" and recommended cutting her
benefits by 20 percent.

The complaint cites medical evaluations of other women who were
given reduced impairment ratings because of their sex, such as
psychiatric problems blamed partially on "perimenopausal
symptoms."

The women and co-plaintiff Service Employees International Union
seek class certification, declaratory judgment that California's
workers' comp system violates state law and the federal and state
constitutions, and an injunction ordering the state "to take
reasonable and effective steps" to fix the problems.

Fisk and co-counsel Anne Hudson-Price, with Public Counsel, said
their clients would be eager to settle the case.

Legislation that would have addressed the concerns about breast
cancer, carpal tunnel syndrome and a few other conditions was
vetoed last year by Gov. Jerry Brown. A revised version of the
bill was introduced in January.


CANADA POST: Worker Seeks to Launch Healthcare Costs Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne reports that a retired Canada Post worker is
seeking permission to launch a class action lawsuit against his
former employer, in hopes of recovering thousands in healthcare
costs not covered by the Crown corporation's insurance policy.

The plaintiff, Montrealer Real Robillard, claims Canada Post's
employee insurance policy goes against regulations outlined by the
Regie de l'assurance-maladie du Quebec (RAMQ).

His lawyer, Marc-Antoine Cloutier, said on July 10 that he filed
the request for a class action suit on July 8 in Superior Court on
behalf of Mr. Robillard and 25,000 Canada Post retirees living in
Quebec.  The lawsuit seeks financial compensation and corrections
to the employee insurance program, administered by Great-West.

News of the legal action comes amid terse contract negotiations
between Canada Post and 50,000 of its employees -- who could be
locked out of their work as early as July 11.   Mr. Cloutier wants
Canada Post to include major reforms to its insurance policy in
any new collective agreement.

Mr. Robillard is battling Parkinson's disease and needs a variety
of medications to preserve his health, according to his lawyer.
Mr. Cloutier says that, since 2008, his client has had to pay
healthcare costs that exceed annual limits outlines by Quebec's
Act Respecting Prescription Drug Insurance.

In total, Mr. Robillard paid $9,000 over what is permissible under
the law -- which is capped at about $1,050 each year.
Mr. Cloutier claims that, under the Canada Post policy, employees
cover 20 per cent of the cost of their medication even if that sum
exceeds provincial caps.

The lawyer believes that Canada Post knows its insurance plan
isn't consistent with provincial law and that it justifies this by
claiming that, as a federal Crown corporation, it can opt out of
RAMQ.

Mr. Cloutier disagrees, claiming the Crown corporation must submit
to the requirements outlined by provincial law.  The lawsuit,
which could affect thousands of former workers, is seeking
reimbursement for any healthcare costs exceeding provincial caps
along with a $1,000 in punitive damages and $1,000 in compensatory
damages.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Securities Class Suits Pending in C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation continues to defend a consolidated
class action lawsuit in California, the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California under the following captions:  David Kinney, etc. v.
Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015
(the "Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone
Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the
"Grooms Complaint").

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013
and November 5, 2015.  The Kinney Complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding
BPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many
legal and financial obligations to the Company.  The Kinney
Complaint also alleges that the Company's financial statements
were not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation and
were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over accounting.  The Kinney
Complaint alleges that these public statements and accounting
irregularities constituted violations by all named defendants of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as
well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the
individual defendants.  The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and
claims that are substantially identical to those in the Kinney
Complaint, and both complaints seek compensatory damages of an
undisclosed amount.

On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as
lead plaintiff.  On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the
motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff.  On May 6,
2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations and claims
substantially identical to those of the Kinney Complaint was filed
in the consolidated action.  The putative class period in the
Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12, 2014 to November 5,
2015.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint was due June 17, 2016. The Company has not recorded any
liability as of March 31, 2016 since any potential loss is not
probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of
the proceedings.

Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets and
services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications, including cogeneration
(combined heat and power ("CHP"), integrated combined heat and
power ("ICHP"), and combined cooling, heat and power ("CCHP")),
renewable energy, natural resources and critical power supply.


CASH AMERICA: Directors Sued Over Merger to First Cash
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling Cash
America International too cheaply through an unfair process to
First Cash, in a 1-for-0.84 share swap, equivalent to $40.90 per
Cash America share, or $2.4 billion, shareholders say in a class
action in Dallas County Court.


CHUNG HUA: Faces "Sun" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Chung Hua Stone Kitchen. The case
is captioned Da Li Sun, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHUNG HUA STONE
KITCHEN, INC., Liang Dong Jin, and JOHN or JANE DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03874 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2016).

Chung Hua makes integrated development, production and marketing
of kitchen-spaces personalized products.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COMMAND SECURITY: Settlement to Be Administered within 2 Years
--------------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement in a
class action lawsuit will be administered over the next one to two
years.

On April 29, 2014, the California Superior Court granted a
plaintiff's motion (Leal v. Command Security Corporation) to
certify a class consisting of all persons who were employed by the
Company in a non-exempt security officer position within the State
of California at any time since May 2, 2007 through the date of
trial who agreed to and signed an on-duty meal period agreement at
the time of their employment. The case is a certified class action
involving allegations that the Company violated certain California
state laws relating to on-duty meal and rest breaks.

On November 12, 2015, the Company agreed to a maximum settlement
amount of $2.0 million, including plaintiff's attorney fees and
costs, administration costs, and certain other miscellaneous
costs. As part of the settlement, the parties further agreed that
(i) the final settlement will be subject to court approval; (ii) a
minimum of 50% of the net proceeds will be distributed to the
class; and (iii) the settlement will be paid in two installments,
the first to be paid upon court approval of the final settlement
agreement and the second to be paid no later than one year from
final approval.

This lawsuit is one of numerous class action lawsuits filed during
the past year against security guard companies in California
related to meal and rest break regulations. The Company
aggressively defended its position in this case; however, given
the current environment in California regarding similar lawsuits,
the Company believes that settling this matter under these terms
provides a favorable outcome. In addition, the Company considered
its assessment of the cost to continue to defend the case through
trial and a potential appeal in its decision to settle. While the
parties have established a maximum settlement amount at $2.0
million, the Company recorded a $1.4 million provision in the
quarter ended September 30, 2015. This provision is based on the
terms of the settlement and historical statistical information as
to the expected rate of participation in similar cases provided to
the Company by claims administrators. In the event the rate of
participation in the settlement by class members was to exceed
current estimates, the final settlement amount could increase to
the maximum settlement amount. The settlement will be administered
over the next one to two years.

The Leal v. Command Security Corporation lawsuit is one of
numerous class action lawsuits filed during the past year against
security guard companies in California related to meal and rest
break regulations. The Company aggressively defended its position
in this case; however, given the current environment in California
regarding similar lawsuits, the Company believes that settling
this matter under these terms provides a favorable outcome. In
addition, the Company considered its assessment of the cost to
continue to defend the case through trial and a potential appeal
in its decision to settle. While the parties have established a
maximum settlement amount at $2.0 million, the Company recorded a
$1.4 million provision in the quarter ended September 30, 2015.
This provision is based on the terms of the settlement and
historical statistical information as to the expected rate of
participation in similar cases provided to the Company by claims
administrators. In the event the rate of participation in the
settlement by class members were to exceed current estimates the
final settlement amount could increase to the maximum settlement
amount. The settlement will be administered over the next one to
two years.


CONN APPLIANCES: Faces "Gerlach" Suit in W.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Conn Appliances, Inc. The case is
captioned Jason Gerlach and Manuel Mayoral, the Plaintiffs, v.
Conn Appliances, Inc., Conn's, Inc., and Conn Credit Corp, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00860 (W.D. Tex., July 12, 2016).

Conn's is an electronics and appliance store chain headquartered
in The Woodlands, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel M. Meyler, Esq.
          EASTMAN LIBERSAT & MEYLER, PC
          1706 E. Sixth St.
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (844) 466 7326
          Facsimile: (512) 879 1861
          E-mail: sam.meyler@elmlegal.com


CORAL TELL: Continues to Defend Class Action in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that Coral Tell Ltd. Continues
to defend a class action lawsuit filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa
District Court.

On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19,200
or $5,300 was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court against
Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company that owns and operates a
website offering advertisements. Coral Tell Ltd. is currently
being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding phone call
overages, and has served a third-party notice against Logia and
two additional companies for the Company's alleged involvement in
facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a service offered
by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to display a
virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of their real
cellular number. The plaintiff claims that calls were charged for
the connection time between two segments of the call, instead of
the second segment alone; that the caller was charged even if the
advertiser did not answer the call (as the charge began upon
initiation of the first segment); and that the caller was charged
for text messages sent to the advertiser, although the service did
not support delivery of text messages.

"We have no contractual relationship with this company. We believe
the lawsuit is without merit and a finding of liability on our
part remote. After conferring with advisors and counsel,
management believes that the ultimate liability, if any, in
aggregate will not be material to the financial position or
results or operations of the Company for any future period," the
Company said.


COX LAW: Certification of FDCPA Class Sought in "Johnson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
Counts I of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action titled
WILLIAM JOHNSON, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. COX LAW
FIRM, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-07274 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a
class action against Cox Law Firm, LLC.

The proposed class consists of (a) all individuals (b) to whom the
Defendant sent a letter, which was sent at any time during a
period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and
ending 21 days after the filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC, be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KNvUvvT8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com


CRAIG HAMILTON: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Rowe" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for conditional certification and
notification of all putative class members in the lawsuit titled
GREGORY ROWE and CODY PILKINTON on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CRAIG HAMILTON dba HAMILTON PAINTING,
Case No. 6:16-cv-03259-RK (W.D. Mo.).

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      for unpaid wages pursuant to the FLSA for a conditional
      class defined as:

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

   2. compelling Defendant Craig Hamilton, doing business as
      Hamilton Painting, to produce within 14 days of the Order
      granting this Motion, the full name, all known addresses,
      email addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential
      class members;

   3. permitting the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send, within 14 days
      of receipt of the Class list from Hamilton, the Court-
      authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form via U.S. Mail and
      electronic mail to putative Class members;

   4. allowing 60 days for putative Class members to return their
      Consent to Sue form to Plaintiffs' Counsel for filing with
      the Court;

   5. permitting the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send a second,
      identical copy of the Notice and Consent to Sue form to
      members of the putative Class 30 days into the Notice
      Period, via U.S. Mail and email, reminding them of the
      deadline for the submission of the Consent to Sue form; and

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=w7jM6wJr

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michelle L. Marvel, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON AND ROBERTSON, P.C.
          11150 Overbrook Rd. #200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266-2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
          E-mail: MMarvel@bflawfirm.com


DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Suit Over Tax Foreclosures
---------------------------------------------------
Charity Smith, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
going to bat for thousands of distressed homeowners, most of them
black, the American Civil Liberties Union claims in court that
Wayne County's foreclosure crisis is the worst Michigan has seen
since the Great Depression.

County treasurer Eric Sabree is going after homeowners for unpaid
property taxes, but the ACLU says those tax rates are woefully out
of date.

"The city of Detroit has failed to conduct properly the legally
mandated property tax assessments for at least two decades," the
complaint states, filed July 13, in Wayne County Circuit Court.

"Further, after the values of homes began to drop precipitously in
2008, the city of Detroit failed to reduce the assessed values of
the homes to match the actual true cash values, a fact which city
officials have acknowledged," the complaint continues. "As a
result homeowners, including plaintiffs, were taxed as if their
homes were worth many times their actual true cash value."

The ACLU brought the suit as a class action, with the Morningside
Community Organization as lead plaintiff.

That nonprofit is joined by seven individual homeowners and three
other community groups.

Four of the individual plaintiffs say they qualify for a poverty
exemption that excuses them from paying property taxes, but that
Detroit's "needlessly complex and impenetrable application
procedures" have kept those exemptions out of reach.

Quoting data compiled by the United Way of Southeastern Michigan,
the ACLU notes that 36 percent of Detroit homeowners facing tax
foreclosure in 2015 met federal poverty levels.

More than 80 percent meanwhile "had faced a hardship in the prior
year -- including medical problems, divorce, job loss, or a family
death."

The ACLU says property values sank heavily in Wayne County, and
Detroit in particular, after the 2008 financial crisis -- some by
as much as 80 percent.

Yet Detroit has not conducted a citywide reassessment for 50
years, according to the complaint.  Detroit is aware of the
problem and even began reassessing, but that process will not be
complete "until late 2016 at the earliest," the complaint states.

Compounding the outdated assessments, according to the complaint,
is that Detroit now intertwines tax debts with water liens.

The ACLU notes that Detroit water bills are exorbitant because of
"a series of poor financial investments by the city."

"The homeowners often face the dual challenge of a water shutoff
in the short term -- with hefty fees for reconnection --
eventually followed by a tax foreclosure based in part on the
unfairly high water bill," the complaint states.

Wayne County sold 6,000 homes at the 2014 tax-foreclosure auction,
and that number climbed to 8,000 occupied homes last year,
according to the complaint.

Though the 2015 auction included "a record-high number of
properties," according to the complaint, Treasurer Sabree has
estimated that 20,000 properties will be auctioned this year.

The ACLU says Sabree sent out 38,000 foreclosure notices for back
taxes from 2013 or earlier, and around 20,000 of these notices
were for tax bills less than $3,000. To avoid foreclosure on 2013
taxes, 2016 is the last year.

Wayne County census records show that the tax-foreclosure rate in
blocks where most homeowners are black is 10 to 15 times higher
than in blocks where most homeowners are non-African American.

"The Wayne County Defendants practice of foreclosing on homes in
the county with tax debts based on an illegal over-assessments of
property values has a gross disparate impact on African Americans
in Wayne County," the complaint says.

One of the plaintiffs, Spirlin Moore, is 77, black, deaf and
illiterate. He receives less than $10,000 a year from Social
Security disability and food assistance. Though denied a poverty
exemption in 2012, 2013 and 2014, he was granted it in 2015 and
2016.

Another plaintiff Walter Hicks, 57, is also black and disabled
from a back injury. He makes a mere $15,000 a year but says he was
denied a poverty exemption in 2012.  He was then too discouraged
to apply in 2013, according to the complaint, but reapplied in
2014 and was once again denied.

The ACLU says the county mistakenly believed that Hicks owned two
properties because it confused him with someone with a similar
name. The county allegedly refused to reverse its decision despite
proof of the error.

Another plaintiff, Julia Aikens, is a former medical assistant who
has been on disability since 1999. When she was denied a poverty
exemption in 2014, the county allegedly told her that she had to
have lived at her property at least one year> The ACLU says
Michigan law makes no such requirement for the poverty exemption.

The complaint also describes how Vietnam War veteran Edward Knapp
walked 20 blocks and waited 45 minutes in line for a poverty
exemption in 2014, only to be told that they county would mail him
an application.  He says the application came a day after the
deadline and was thus denied, though he makes just $17,000 a year.

ACLU attorney Mike Steinberg filed the lawsuit, which seeks an
injunction, alleging race-discrimination violations of the Fair
Housing Act and violation of due process.

Wayne County, Detroit, the treasurer and the Detroit Citizens
Review Board did not return requests for comment.


DOHERY ENTERPRISES: "Friscia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Friscia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dohery Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Panera Bread Company,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03754 (D.N.Y., June 24, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Dohery Enterprises, Inc. owns and maintains numerous restaurants,
which are doing business as Panera Bread, throughout the states of
New Jersey, New York, and Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esquire
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
              Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in 2011 FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in 2011, an assistant
store manager and an hourly associate filed a collective action
against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the
clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made
on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and
state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an
opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales
associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. The
court is currently reviewing and considering a revised settlement
agreement. The proposed settlement amount has been accrued.


DOLLAR TREE: Settlement Reached in ASM's 2013 and 2014 Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in 2013, a former
assistant store manager on behalf of himself and others alleged to
be similarly aggrieved filed a representative Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law currently pending
in federal court in California. The suit alleges that the Company
failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks;
failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to
maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to
pay wages due upon termination of employment. In May 2014, the
same assistant store manager filed a putative class action in a
California state court for essentially the same conduct alleged in
the federal court PAGA case. The parties have reached an agreement
to settle the two cases and the proposed settlement amount has
been accrued. The two courts must approve the terms of the
settlement for it to be binding and final.


DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Center Employee's OT Pay Suit Removed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in April 2015, a
distribution center employee filed a class action in California
state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest
breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination
pay. Additionally, the employee advised he will be amending his
complaint to abandon his attempt to certify a nation-wide class of
non-exempt distribution employees for improper calculation of
overtime compensation. The Company removed this lawsuit to Federal
Court.


DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager's Suit Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in April 2015, a
former store manager filed a class action in California state
court alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt
employees and, among other things, did not receive overtime
compensation and meal and rest periods and alleging PAGA claims on
behalf of all store employees, including claims for failure to
provide accurate wage statements.


DOLLAR TREE: Former ASMs's Nov. 2015 Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in November 2015, the
Company was served in a PAGA representative action under
California law in California state court on behalf of former
assistant store managers alleging defective wage statements. This
case has been stayed pending the outcome of previously filed
lawsuits alleging defective wage statements.


DOLLAR TREE: Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Pending in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in February 2016, the
Company was served in a putative collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act in Florida federal court. The pleadings allege
overtime violations on behalf of all hourly non-exempt employees.


DOLLAR TREE: Background Check Suit Pending in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in April 2016, the
Company was served with a putative class action in Florida state
court brought by a former store employee asserting the Company
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the way it handled
background checks. Specifically, the former employee alleged the
Company used disclosure forms that did not meet the statute's
requirements, and failed to provide notices accompanied by
background reports prior to taking adverse actions against
prospective and existing employees based on information in the
background report. The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages of
$100 to $1,000 per violation.


DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Female Store Managers in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in 2008, a complaint
was filed alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to
Family Dollar's female store managers. This case was pled as a
putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female store managers. The
plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive
money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief.
The case was transferred to North Carolina Federal Court in
November 2008. The parties are proceeding with limited discovery
and the outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.
The Company believes the case is fully insured.

On July 6, 2015, the Company acquired Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
("Family Dollar") for cash consideration of $6.8 billion and the
issuance of 28.5 million shares of the Company's common stock
valued at $2.3 billion based on the closing price of the Company's
common stock on July 2, 2015 (the "Acquisition").


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Ex-Employee's PAGA Claims Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in 2014, a putative
class action was filed in a California Federal Court by a former
employee alleging that Family Dollar had a policy of requiring
employee bag checks while the employees were not clocked in for
work. As a result of those actions, the employee alleges the
Company violated California law by failing to provide meal periods
and rest breaks, failing to pay regular and overtime wages for
work performed off the clock, failing to provide accurate wage
statements, failing to timely pay all final wages and by engaging
in unfair competition. He has also alleged PAGA claims. The former
employee dismissed the individual claims after the court ruled
that the claims were subject to arbitration. The court ruled that
the PAGA claims may proceed.

On July 6, 2015, the Company acquired Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
("Family Dollar") for cash consideration of $6.8 billion and the
issuance of 28.5 million shares of the Company's common stock
valued at $2.3 billion based on the closing price of the Company's
common stock on July 2, 2015 (the "Acquisition").


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Ex-Employee to Seek Stay Relief
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in 2014, a former
Family Dollar employee brought a putative class action and
asserted claims under PAGA alleging Family Dollar failed to
provide suitable seating to its California store employees. The
case has been stayed pending a ruling by the California Supreme
Court on whether a drug store retailer has an obligation to
provide suitable seating to drug store cashiers. The California
Supreme Court has ruled and the former employee indicated he will
seek to have the stay lifted.

On July 6, 2015, the Company acquired Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
("Family Dollar") for cash consideration of $6.8 billion and the
issuance of 28.5 million shares of the Company's common stock
valued at $2.3 billion based on the closing price of the Company's
common stock on July 2, 2015 (the "Acquisition").


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Ex-Employee's FCRA Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, 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 in 2014, a former
Family Dollar employee filed a nationwide class action in federal
court in Virginia alleging the Company violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to comply with its requirements to give
an individual proper notice and a reasonable time to challenge the
results of a background check before taking action to deny the
person employment (or terminate existing employment). The
plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per
violation.

On July 6, 2015, the Company acquired Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
("Family Dollar") for cash consideration of $6.8 billion and the
issuance of 28.5 million shares of the Company's common stock
valued at $2.3 billion based on the closing price of the Company's
common stock on July 2, 2015 (the "Acquisition").


DR. REDDY'S: Defending Class Suit Over Reimbursement Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23,
2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit over its pricing and
reimbursement practices.

On December 30, 2015, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company and eighteen other pharmaceutical defendants (the
"Action") in State Court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In
the Action, class action plaintiffs allege that the Company and
other defendants, individually or in some cases in concert with
one another, have engaged in pricing and price reporting practices
in violation of various Pennsylvania state laws. More
specifically, plaintiffs allege that: (1) the Company provided
false and misleading pricing information to third party drug
compendia companies for the Company's generic drugs, and such
information was relied upon by private third party payers that
reimbursed for drugs sold by the Company in the United States, and
(2) the Company acted in concert with certain other defendants to
unfairly raise the prices of generic divalproex sodium ER (bottle
of 80, 500 mg tablets ER 24H) and generic pravastatin sodium
(bottle of 500, 10 mg tablets). The Company disputes these
allegations and intends to vigorously defend against these
allegations.


EOG RESOURCES: "Gabrielson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Gabrielson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EOG Resources, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-01826
(S.D. Tex., June 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

EOG Resources, Inc. is one of the largest independent crude oil
and natural gas companies 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
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

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


FABFITFUN INC: Faces "Byerson" Class Suit in N. Dist. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against FabFitFun, Inc.
and Merrithew International Inc.

The case is captioned Julia Byerson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FabFitFun, Inc. and Merrithew
International Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06657 (N.D. Ill., June 24,
2016).

FabFitFun, Inc. is a woman's lifestyle media brand that offers a
membership service delivering products in beauty, fashion,
technology, fitness, food, and home.

Merrithew International Inc. provides responsible exercise
modalities and innovative fitness brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Loren Silverman, Esq.
      THE BRUNO FIRM
      900 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 4E
      Chicago, IL 60607
      Telephone: (312) 286-4915
      E-mail: msilverman@brunolawus.com


FACEBOOK INC: US Terror Victims Sue Over Hamas Posts
----------------------------------------------------
Tamar Pileggi and Marissa Newman, writing for The Times of Israel,
report that the families of five Americans murdered or injured in
recent Palestinian terror attacks in Israel have filed a lawsuit
against Facebook for failing to ban the Gaza-based terror group
Hamas from using its social media platform.

The suit was brought to the New York State District Court under
the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows American citizens who are
victims of terror attacks overseas to sue in US federal court.

The plaintiffs, family members of victims in five separate
terrorist attacks between June 2014 and March 2016, are seeking $1
billion in punitive damages from the social media giant, which has
recently come under attack from Israeli officials for hosting what
they say is Palestinian incitement toward violence.

"Facebook has knowingly provided material support and resources to
Hamas in the form of Facebook's online social media network
platform and communication services," a press release issued by
the plaintiffs said.  "Hamas has used and relied on Facebook's
online social network platform and communications services as
among its most important tools to facilitate and carry out its
terrorist activity."

The lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Stuart and Robbi Force, the
parents of 29-year-old US Army veteran and Vanderbilt University
graduate student Taylor Force, who was fatally stabbed by a Hamas
terrorist while visiting Israel on a school-sponsored trip in
March.

Joining the Forces as plaintiffs are the parents of 16-year-old
Naftali Fraenkel, who was kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank
in June 2014; the parents of 3-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun who
was killed in an October 2014 car-ramming attack in Jerusalem; the
son of 76-year-old Richard Lakin who was killed in an October 2015
shooting and stabbing attack; and Menachem Mendel Rivkin, who was
seriously wounded in a January 2016 stabbing attack in Jerusalem.

All of the victims were US citizens.

New York-based civil rights lawyer Robert Tolchin and Nitsana
Darshan-Leitner, the director of the Shurat HaDin-Israel Law
Center, filed the suit.

The plaintiffs sought an injunction against Facebook requiring the
social network to remove any content that promotes violence
against Israelis, and to actively to monitor its website for
inciting content.  The suit alleged that Facebook has a "legal and
moral obligation" to block much of this content but that it
chooses not to.

A verdict in that case has yet to be handed down.

In the recent wave of attacks starting October 2015, in which some
40 victims have been killed, many of the Palestinian terrorists
were found to have posted praise for previous attackers on their
social media accounts.  The "lone wolf" assailants, unaffiliated
with established terror groups, mourned relatives killed while
attacking Israelis, and peppered their feeds with posts hailing or
yearning for "martyrdom."

The Times of Israel reported last year that some 3.7 million
Palestinians follow the Quds News Network, believed to be
affiliated with Islamic Jihad, on Facebook and 4.2 million follow
the Shehab News Network, which is believed to be affiliated with
Hamas.

The pages at times feature gruesome images of dead Palestinians
and caricatures encouraging more attacks, often accompanied by a
hashtag ordering "Stab!" or warning "Al-Aqsa is in danger!"

Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan recently claimed Facebook was
a "monster" that enables terrorism, and charged that its founder
Mark Zuckerberg had the blood of 13-year-old Hallel Ariel, killed
in a stabbing attack in late June, on his hands.

Mr. Erdan and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked are currently
advancing a bill allowing the government to seek a court order to
force the social media group to remove certain content based on
police recommendations.

The proposal was announced immediately after Shaked and Erdan met
with Facebook officials in the Knesset in June, and will be
formally submitted in the coming weeks.

Separately, Zionist Union MK Revital Swid has submitted a bill
that would levy an NIS 300,000 ($77,000) fine against Facebook for
every post that includes incitement which the social media giant
does not immediately scrub.  Mr. Swid's bill -- signed by both
coalition and opposition lawmakers -- places the onus on Facebook
to actively track posts and delete them, something the company
says it does not do, relying instead on users who "flag"
problematic posts.


FANTASY FAR: "Girard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Girard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fantasy Far East, Inc. d/b/a Miyabi Japanese
Steakhouse; Capital Japan, Inc. d/b/a Miyabi; United Will Kyoto
USA, Inc.; Koichiro Hirao, Koichiro Maeda, and John Doe 1-10, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02209-PMD (D.S.C., June 24, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC  29412
      Telephone: (843) 579-7373
      Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.MJS


FCA US: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Fiat C635 Manual Transmission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Victorino and Adam Tavitian, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals v. FCA US LLC, Case No.
3:16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 24, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all who purchased or leased any Dodge Dart vehicles
equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission, designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted and serviced
by FCA US LLC, with a defect in the manual transmissions that
cause the vehicles' clutches to fail and stick to the floor.

Headquartered at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan
48326, FCA US LLC designs, manufactures, markets, distributes,
services, repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles,
nationwide and in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
      Robert Friedl, Esq.
      Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
      Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
      Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
              Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
              Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
              Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
              Karen.Wallace@capstonelawyers.com


FOWLER PACKING: Calif. Labor Law Objections Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that two Central Valley farming companies could not prove they
were intentionally excluded from an amnesty clause in California's
newest labor law over piece-rate pay, a federal judge in Fresno,
Calif. ruled July 8.

Fresno-based Fowler Packing Co. and Gerawan Farming sued the state
in January, claiming the legislature left them out of an exemption
clause in Assembly Bill 1513 and punished them because of past
labor disputes with the United Farm Workers.

The bill, which took effect Jan. 1, essentially rewrote the rules
governing the payment of piece-rate compensation in California. It
requires employers to pay workers for rest and recovery periods
and other nonproductive time at or above specified minimum hourly
rates, separately from any piece-rate compensation.  The law also
forced businesses to pay back wages to eligible employees, such as
fruit pickers and those paid by the mile driven.

Fowler Packing and Gerawan Farming take issue with the "penalty
relief plan" that gives businesses a grace period to settle with
and pay back wages to employees in return for protections from
employment lawsuits and other penalties. The growers claim the
legislature carved them out of this amnesty clause, which opened
them up to class actions, while other businesses were given
relief.

The farming companies argued that exceptions in the law
specifically targeted them. For example, the safe harbor does not
apply to any nonproductive wage and hour claim that was asserted
in court before March 1, 2014 -- which excludes Gerawan, because
the UFW sued it about three weeks before that cutoff date.

In his 15-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd said the
legislature had at least one reasonably conceivable basis for
including the exception in the penalty relief plan -- the need to
balance the concern of increased litigation due to the new law
with the desire not to disturb ongoing litigation.

"[I]t is certainly conceivable the legislature sought to impose a
reasonable limit by allowing employers to invoke the statutory
affirmative defense only in cases that had not yet been filed, or
that were in the very early stages of litigation," Drozd said.

He continued, "In contrast, in cases that had been pending for a
substantial amount of time prior to the statute taking effect, the
legislature could have concluded the parties and the courts were
more likely to have invested substantial resources and to have
developed significant expectations." Drozd added that the chosen
date of March 1, 2014, represents a reasonable passage of time --
nearly 22 months prior to the effective date of the law.

To the extent that the farmers argue the date was selected with
the intent to target them, Drozd finds that the court "is in no
position to second-guess a provision that is otherwise rationally
related to a legitimate state interest."

The farmers also object to the provision in the law stating that
employers cannot be exempt from any claims made prior to April 1,
2015, that include allegations that the employer intentionally
stole or diminished employees' wages through the use of fictitious
worker names, also referred to as "ghost workers."

A class action making such claims was filed by agricultural piece-
rate workers against Fowler Packing on March 17, 2015, rendering
the farming company unable to claim the affirmative defenses set
forth in the law.

Again, Drozd found a legitimate state interest in allowing a
subset of such cases to proceed through litigation.

"Certainly, the legislature could have decided that employers
facing both claims for failure to pay wages for nonproductive time
and ghost worker claims should not be afforded the same
affirmative defenses as those defending claims for lost wages
only. Such a distinction clearly finds a rational basis and would
not have been so unrelated to the legislature's broader goal of
addressing the potential increase in litigation so as to bar its
adoption," Drozd said.

Although the farming companies argue that the legislature should
have applied such an exception to all cases involving ghost worker
claims, without a time limit employees could simply add these
additional allegations to their lawsuits just to deny an employer
the ability to take advantage of the affirmative defense, the
judge said.

"Furthermore, the decision to select April 1, 2015, as opposed to
any other date, is reasonable, and the court finds it unnecessary
to question the process that resulted in the legislature's
adoption of this time limitation," Drozd said.

Although the exceptions cited by the farmers create certain
classifications among employers based on the nature and length of
preexisting litigation, this does not mean they were intended to
punish, the judge said.

"[T]hese classifications do not impose judgment without trial nor
do they deprive employers of liberty, property interests, or even
access to the courts," Drozd added.

David Schwarz, the growers' attorney, said they plan to appeal the
decision.

The case captioned, FOWLER PACKING COMPANY, INC. and GERAWAN
FARMING, INC., Plaintiffs, v. DAVID M. LANIER, CHRISTINE BAKER,
and JULIE A. SU, Defendants., No. 1:16-cv-00106-DAD-SAB (E.D.
Cal.).


GENCO INC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ortiz" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adnan Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Genco, Inc., Kraft Heinz Food Company, and Does 1
through 50 inclusive, Case No. RG16820935 (Cal. Super Ct., June
24, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
employees all vested vacation pay, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to pay premium wages for unprovided meal and rest
periods, and failure to pay overtime wages.

Genco, Inc. is a third party logistics provider that operates the
Kraft Heinz facility.

Kraft Heinz Food Company produces and markets food products in the
United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Thomas Segal, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: daniel@setarehfirm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Newco Fails to Shake Off Ignition-Switch Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that General Motors sale to its new corporate owner seven years
ago cannot allow it to escape potentially billions of dollars in
liability for the ignition-switch debacle that spawned nationwide
litigation, the Second Circuit ruled July 13.

In 2009, GM's former company sold its assets to the current
limited liability company that owns it, under an agreement that
also shields the new owner from successor-liability claims.

That clause spawned controversy last year amid revelations that
ignition-switch defects in GM vehicles caused accidents that
killed at least 35 people, though an independent report
commissioned by the Center for Auto Safety says the death toll
could be as high as 300.

GM tried to fend off more than 60 class-action lawsuits filed
against it across the United States by turning to federal
bankruptcy court for the enforcement of the sale order. The
company had expected to face between $7 and $10 billion in
liability.

Most of the vehicles involved were built and sold by the "old" GM.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber noted that there were 850
objections to this order, the "most serious" of which related to
the "free and clear" provision as applied to the ignition
litigation.

However, the judge ruled last year that new GM cannot be sued for
ignition-switch claims that could have been brought against old
GM, unless the claims arose from new GM's own conduct.

The Second Circuit reversed the decision in large part July 13.

The panel found it likely that the extremely rapid sale process of
old GM to new GM, which took only 40 days -- a record for a sale
of that magnitude -- likely prevented car owners from negotiating
some compensation for their claims.

"We do not know what would have happened in 2009 if counsel
representing plaintiffs with billions of dollars in claims had sat
across the table from old GM, new GM, and [the U.S. Treasury
Department]. Our lack of confidence, however, is not imputed on
plaintiffs denied notice but instead bolsters a conclusion that
enforcing the sale order would violate procedural due process,"
Judge Denny Chin said, writing for the three-judge panel.

It is well-documented that old GM was well aware of the ignition-
switch defect as early as 2002 but failed to warn dealers or
consumers about the dangers, and continued to shift blame away
from itself even as people were dying on the highways because
their airbags did not deploy.

"While we cannot say with any certainty that the outcome would
have been different, we can say that the business circumstances at
the time were such that plaintiffs could have had some negotiating
leverage, and the opportunity to participate in the proceedings
would have been meaningful," Chin wrote in the 74-page opinion.

On these due process grounds, the court reversed the bankruptcy
court's decision to enjoin many claims relating to the ignition-
switch defect.

"We reverse the bankruptcy court's decision insofar as it enforced
the sale order to enjoin claims relating to the ignition switch
defect. Because enforcing the sale order would violate procedural
due process in these circumstances, the bankruptcy court erred in
granting new GM's motion to enforce and these plaintiffs thus
cannot be 'bound by the terms of the [sale] order,'" the opinion
states.

Further, the court said that yet-unspecified independent claims,
and used car purchasers' claims, do not fall within the scope of
the sale order's "free and clear" clause.

"We can imagine that some claims involve misrepresentations by new
GM as to the safety of old GM cars," Chin wrote. "These sorts of
claims are based on new GM's post-petition conduct, and are not
claims that are based on a right to payment that arose before the
filing of petition or that are based on pre-petition conduct."

Further, "Used car purchasers were individuals who purchased old
GM cars after the closing, without knowledge of the defect or
possible claim against new GM. They had no relation with old GM
prior to bankruptcy," the ruling states.

The panel, however, agreed with the bankruptcy court that
preclosing accident claims and economic loss claims arising from
the ignition-switch defect are barred by the sale contract
language.


GRUBHUB INC: Must Defend Against Drivers' Suit
----------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco refused on July 13 to
certify a class of GrubHub delivery drivers who claim the food
delivery service misclassified them as contractors, but denied the
company's motion to dismiss the bulk of the drivers' claims.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ruled that lead
plaintiff Raef Lawson can't represent the class because he refused
to sign an arbitration agreement prohibiting him from
participating in class actions with the company like the drivers
he was seeking to represent.

"Isn't someone who didn't opt out better?" Corley asked the
plaintiffs' counsel Shannon Liss-Riordan.

Liss-Riordan said GrubHub is using the arbitration clause to
prevent Lawson from bringing a class claim and that arbitration
clauses don't preclude someone from "participating passively" in a
class action. She noted that a judge certified a class in a suit
against Uber in which the lead plaintiff had also opted out of
signing an arbitration agreement.

"[Lawson] is not a typical or adequate representative," Corley
said. "He can't make the argument."

Liss-Riordan said the adequacy and typicality issue was easily
remedied by adding a class representative to the suit who hadn't
opted out of arbitration, and that her clients would file a motion
for leave to amend that would include such a plaintiff.

Lawson accused GrubHub last September of misclassifying drivers as
independent contractors, failing to reimburse them for business
expenses and failing to pay them minimum and overtime wages.
Lawson and a second plaintiff, Andrew Tan, are also seeking
damages against the company for violating labor laws under
California's Private Attorneys General Act.

GrubHub pays drivers a flat fee for each delivery they make during
their shifts instead of compensating them for the total time they
spend on call, according to the plaintiffs. Tan says he often
worked more than 60 hours per week without overtime pay, but
GrubHub denies that its drivers work the entire time they are on
call.

In a ruling issued late July 13, Corley refused to dismiss the
plaintiffs' minimum and overtime wage claims, unfair business
practice claims and PAGA claims, finding that they had been
sufficiently stated for the time being.

GrubHub attorney Theane Evangelis said at the July 13, morning
hearing that the plaintiffs couldn't make minimum wage and
overtime claims because they hadn't specified what hourly and
regular pay rates they used to make those claims.

"We don't know if they worked for eight hours and got $100 on some
days, which would be more than the minimum wage," Evangelis said.
"You don't know what they're talking about day-to-day and week-to-
week. They still could've been meeting their friend for coffee at
Starbucks."

"Actually, that's not true. You do know, you have the
information," Corley said.

In her afternoon ruling, Corley found that the plaintiffs' wage
claims only need to support an inference that GrubHub didn't pay
them minimum or overtime wages during at least one work week, and
that no additional details are required at this stage in the case.

Drivers are required to accept at least 75 percent of the calls
dispatched to them during their shifts, the plaintiffs say. If
their acceptance rate falls below 75 percent, or if they don't
arrive at a restaurant by a designated cutoff time, GrubHub will
fire them. To reach a restaurant on time, they need to be in or
near their cars during their entire shifts, they say.

"Given the frequency and duration of job assignments, as well as
the requirement that the drivers be in or very near to their cars
at all time during their shifts, the drivers could not and did not
engage in personal non-work activities during their GrubHub
shifts," the plaintiffs say.

GrubHub counters that rejecting a quarter of their delivery calls
means drivers can take a nearly 40-minute break during each 2.5-
hour shift, amounting to 2.5 hours of personal time each day if a
driver works four shifts a day. That means drivers spend most of
their shifts not working, GrubHub says.

But in response, the plaintiffs say that drivers are allowed to
reject calls because they often receive concurrent job assignments
or assignments while making another delivery and can't accept
every call.

Because drivers are paid by the delivery, and because GrubHub
doesn't reimburse them for business expenses like gas and car
maintenance, their weekly pay rates often fall below the state's
minimum wage, according to the complaint.

In denying GrubHub's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' PAGA
claims, Corley found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded
administrative exhaustion by informing the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency of GrubHub's labor violations claimed
in its complaint. GrubHub had argued that the plaintiffs need to
provide the specific details of their written notices to the
agency to plead exhaustion.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten
& Liss-Riordan in Boston. Grubhub is represented by Theane
Evangelis of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles.

The case captioned, ANDREW TAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRUBHUB,
INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal.)


GULF COAST TRANSPORTATION: Francois Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ESTIME FRANCOIS and RENETTE
ORDEUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. GULF COAST TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-01061-SCB-TBM
(M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to certify this class:

     All persons employed by Gulf Coast as taxicab drivers in and
     around Hillsborough County, Florida from the four years
     preceding the filing of this Complaint through the date of
     final judgment in this action.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they have been
misclassified by the Defendant as independent contractors in
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Gulf Coast is a taxicab company that operates in and around
Hillsborough County, Florida.  The Company does not classify its
drivers as employees, nor does it pay them an hourly wage, the
Plaintiffs allege.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com


HAWK II: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Inaccurate Wages Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hawk II Environmental Corp., and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. CCW-CAC-D-311 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 24, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees
with accurate and proper itemized wage statements.

Hawk II Environmental Corp. owns at least three gas stations in
Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
      Abigail A. Zelenski, Esq.
      David Zelenski, Esq.
      Sehreen Ladak, Esq.
      JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
      114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
      Glendale, CA 91203
      E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com
              abigail@jlglawyers.com
              david@jlglawyers.com
              sehreen@jlglawyers.com


HCR MANORCARE: Faces Shareholders Suit Over Mismanagement
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a derivative shareholder
class action accuses directors of HCR Manorcare nursing homes of
gross mismanagement, abuse of control and corporate waste.

The cases are, Harry Stearns v. HCR Manorcare Inc.; HCP Inc.;
James Flaherty; Lauralee Martin; Timothy Schoen, pending in Orange
County Superior Court.


HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Hypolite" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Hypolite, on behalf of herself individually other
employees similarly situated v. Health Care Services of New York
Inc. d/b/a "HCS Healthcare", Agnes Shemia and John Does #1-10,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04922 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a nursing and healthcare service
company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


HSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Damron" Suit in Fla. Over Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Damron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HSI Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-01762-
EAK-TBM (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a
message without prior express consent of the called party.

HSI Financial Services, LLC operates a financial services company
headquartered at 1000 Circle 75 Pkwy #800, Atlanta, GA 30339.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
      William Peerce Howard, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
      210-A South MacDill Avenue
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 500-1500
      Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
      E-mail: Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
              Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


HUNTER INDUSTRIES: Faces "King" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony King, John Ramirez, et al. v. Hunter Industries, Ltd.,
Hunter Industries Management Company, L.C. a/k/a Hunter Industries
Management Company, Ltd., Hunter Industries Holding Co., and San
Miguel Interests, L.C., Case No. 6:16-cv-00038 (S.D. Tex., June
24, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide highway construction services in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Siurek, Esq.
      Patricia Haylon, Esq.
      WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
      3334 Richmond, Suite 100
      Houston, TX 77098
      Telephone: (713) 522-0066
      Facsimile: (713) 522-9977
      E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com
              thaylon@warrensiurek.com

         - and -

      LAW OFFICES OF GENNARO DU TERRIOL
      Gennaro Du Terroil, Esq.
      18756 Stone Oak Pkwy, Suite 200
      San Antonio, TX 78258
      Telephone: (210) 998-5645
      Facsimile: (210) 495-4670
      E-mail: cibelliterroil@outlook.com


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yi Xiang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., Keith R. Dunleavy, Thomas R.
Kloster, Denise K. Fletcher, Andre S. Hoffmann, Lee D. Roberts,
William J. Teuber Jr., Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith, Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co.,
Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC
and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Case No. 1:16-cv-04923
(S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Inovalon Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based data analytics
platforms for health insurance plans, pharmaceutical companies,
researchers and others in the healthcare industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY  11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      David W. Hall, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA  94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
              dhall@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

         - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 802-1486
      Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
      E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com


INTELLICURE INC: Holt Seeks Certification of 3 TCPA/ICFA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action captioned HOLT HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v.
INTELLICURE, INC., d/b/a US WOUND REGISTRY and US PODIATRY
REGISTRY; CHRONIC DISEASE REGISTRY, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case
No. 1:16-cv-07281 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action
against the Defendants.  The Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
     with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four
     years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C.
     Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of
     defendants Intellicure, Inc., d/b/a US Wound Registry and US
     Podiatry Registry; or Chronic Disease Registry, Inc.,
     promoting any of their goods or services for sale (d)
     which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47
     U.S.C. Section 227.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendants Intellicure, Inc., d/b/a US Wound
     Registry and US Podiatry Registry; or Chronic Disease
     Registry, Inc., promoting any of their goods or services for
     sale (d) which did not contain an opt out notice as
     described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV,
     alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants
     Intellicure, Inc., d/b/a US Wound Registry and US Podiatry
     Registry; or Chronic Disease Registry, Inc., promoting any
     of their goods or services for sale (d) which did not
     contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C.
     Section 227.

Holt Healthcare further asks that it be appointed as class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC,
be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZAPU9ObM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Class Action Parties Engaged in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intercloud Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit are engaged in discovery.

In March 2014, a complaint entitled In re InterCloud Systems Sec.
Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 (D.N.J.) was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR,
as purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms,
and John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between November
5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleged violations by
the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with
certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive
the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of
the purported class to purchase shares of the Company's common
stock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements
of a material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary
to make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleged
that Mr. Munro and the Company violated Section 20 of the Exchange
Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other
unspecified litigation costs.

On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending
actions. The lead filed an amended complaint in January 2015
adding additional third-party defendants. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in late January 2015 and
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in early March
2015. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on March 13, 2015. The Company's motion to dismiss was
denied by the Court on October 29, 2015. The Court held a status
conference on February 29, 2016, and entered a PreTrial Scheduling
Order on February 29, 2016. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.


JENNINGS, MO: To Pay $4.7MM to Settle Suit Over Court Debts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
The City of Jennings, which borders Ferguson, Mo., will pay $4.7
million to 2,000 mostly poor, black residents to settle a class
action in St. Louis that claimed the city jailed them for unpaid
court debts.

The plaintiffs claimed in the class action filed in February 2015
that Jennings ran a debtor's prison, that they were jailed because
they couldn't afford to pay fines, mostly from minor offenses such
as traffic tickets.

A similar class action was filed against Ferguson the same day.
That case is tentatively scheduled for trial in July 2017.

The Jennings settlement is the highest daily rate of compensation
reached in a settlement with a U.S. municipality to resolve
incarceration practices of this kind, the Washington Post
reported.

U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson gave the settlement
preliminary approval on July 13. A hearing on final approval is
set for Dec. 14.

The class actions stemmed from the unrest sparked by the fatal
shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson on Aug. 9, 2014. Brown, an
unarmed black man, was shot by then-Ferguson police officer Darren
Wilson, who is white.

The shooting sparked months of often violent protests and brought
the topics of racism and excessive police force into the national
conversation.

One of the main complaints from protestors was against the dozens
of municipalities in the north St. Louis County region who they
claimed excessively targeted and fined them, which fueled the
anger following the Brown shooting.

About 81 of 90 municipalities near St. Louis run their own courts,
which with St. Louis County collected nearly half of $132 million
in fines paid by Missourians, a 2014 study found, despite the area
being home to fewer than 1 in 4 state residents, according to the
Post.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Certification of Class Sought in "Shore" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Shore filed with Court his unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, certifying class
for settlement purposes, directing the issuance of class notice
and entry of scheduling order in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL SHORE,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A. d/b/a/ CHASE, and PHELAN HALLINAN DIAMOND &
JONES, PLLC, Case No. 0:16-cv-60125-JIC (S.D. Fla.).

Mr. Shore asks the Court to conditionally certify this class for
settlement purposes:

     All individuals who, on or after December 3, 2013: (a) was a
     borrower on a home loan that was secured by a mortgage or
     deed of trust on property located within Alabama, Florida,
     or Georgia; and (b) was sent a reinstatement quote letter
     from Chase, Phelan, or any other entity on behalf of Chase
     or Phelan.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are any: (i) individuals who
are or were, during the Class Period, officers or directors of the
Defendants or any of their respective affiliates; (ii) any
justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States or any
State, their spouses, and persons within the third degree of
relationship to either of them, or the spouses of such persons;
and (iii) all borrowers who file a timely and proper request to be
excluded from the Settlement Class in accordance with Section 13
of the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Class Period runs
from December 3, 2013, through the date of preliminary approval.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and appoint Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq., and James
L. Kauffman, Esq., of Bailey & Glasser LLP, J. Dennis Card, Esq.,
and Darren Newhart, Esq., of Consumer Law Group, P.A., and
Christopher Legg, Esq., of Christopher W. Legg, P.A., as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s1mqMBNb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1054 31st Street, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 342-2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          Darren Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          2501 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 100
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 921-9994
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: DCard@Consumerlaworg.com
                  dnewhart@consumerlaworg.com

               - and -

          Christopher Legg, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A.
          3837 Hollywood Blvd., Suite B
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 235-3706
          Facsimile: (954) 927-2451
          E-mail: ChrisLeggLaw@gmail.com


KOPPERS INC: "Trotter" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under AMWA
------------------------------------------------------------
KELVIN TROTTER, NATHANE DAVIS, LONZO ALLEN, and KEN PIGGEE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff v. KOPPERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00488-
BSM (Ark. Cir. Ct., July 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, and
any other relief the Court deems just and proper under the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA).

Plaintiffs, like all of Koppers' yard employees, are required to
report to a bathhouse and don specific personal protective
equipment provided by Koppers before the start of their shift.

The equipment is required to protect Koppers' employees from
creosote, a dangerous carcinogen used in the manufacturing and
treatment of crossties, and other hazards present at Koppers.

After donning the required equipment, Plaintiffs travel to their
work station to be in place at the time their shift is scheduled
to begin. Likewise, after the end of their scheduled shift,
Plaintiffs are required to travel back to the bathhouse and remove
the equipment.

Koppers required all employees to leave their dirty uniforms and
equipment on site, and employees were punished if they removed
those items from the premises. Despite requiring all employees to
don and doff the same equipment, Koppers does not pay its
employees for this time and only pays the employees based on their
scheduled shifts.

Koppers operates a crosstie treatment plant in North Little Rock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerry D. Garner, Esq.
          John Holleman
          Timothy A. Steadman
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 West Second Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975 5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975 5043
          E-mail: jerry@johnholleman.net
                  jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net


L G DIEGO: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathanael Celso Guido Ochoa, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. L G Diego, Inc. and Diego V. Ojeda, Case No. 1:16-
cv-22453-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an electronics manufacturing company
located at 10225 Willow Creek Rd, San Diego, CA 92131.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      2847 Hollywood Blvd.
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (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
      Telephone (305) 773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


LAGOON LINENS: Rosenberg Seeks Submission of Inventory Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL ROSENBERG, as a Shareholder of Lagoon Linens, Inc., the
Plaintiff, v. RISA MEHL, STUART MEHL, JEREMY MEHL, JACLYN MEHL,
SAM MOSKOWITZ, JAY MOSKOWITZ, ELIZABETH MOSKOWITZ, IRV SCHAULEWICZ
and LAGOON LINENS INC., the Defendants, Case No. 604983/2016 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., July 6, 2016), seeks injunction directing Risa Mehl and
Irv Schaulewicz to submit to the Plaintiff a full and complete
inventory of all records belonging
to Lagoon that are in the Defendants' possession, relinquish all
such records to the Plaintiff, and provide a full accounting of
all funds received and expended on behalf of Lagoon.

Due to Risa Mehl's mismanagement, misdeeds, malfeasance, and
negligence, she breached her fiduciary duty to Lagoon. As a
result, Lagoon has been damaged in a sum of not less than
$500,000.00.

Lagoon Linens sells linens and related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Claude Castro, Esq.
          CLAUDE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          545 Fifth Avenue- 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 810 2710


LG ELECTRONICS: Parens Patriae Suit Not Barred, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc, affirmed the ruling of
the lower courts which held that the CPA's four-year statute of
limitations did not apply to actions for injunctive relief and
restitution brought by the attorney general under RCW 19.86.080
because it expressly applies only to actions for damages under RCW
19.86.090.  The Court also concluded that the State's .080 action
was "brought for the benefit of the State" and thus exempt from
any general statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.160.

The case is THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. LG
ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICA U.S.A., INC.; KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. A/K/A ROYAL PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH
AMERICA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA
ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.; HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI DISPLAYS,
LTD.; HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.; and HITACHI ASIA,
LTD., Petitioners, and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES (TAIWAN),
LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD. F/K/A SAMSUNG DISPLAY DEVICE CO.,
LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG SDI MEXICO S.A. DE C.V.;
SAMSUNG SDI BRASIL LTDA.; SHENZHEN SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; TIANJIN
SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD.; MT
PICTURE DISPLAY CO., LTD.; PANASONIC CORPORATION F/K/A MATSUSHITA
ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH
AMERICA; CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD.; CPTF OPTRONICS CO. LTD.; and
CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD., Defendants, No.
91263-7 (Wash.).

A full-text copy of Judge Failla's July 14, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/aatouw from Leagle.com.

On May 1, 2012, the State of Washington, through the attorney
general, filed suit on behalf of itself and as parens patriae on
behalf of persons residing in the state against a number of
foreign electronics manufacturers.  The State alleged that between
at least March 1, 1995, through at least November 25, 2007, the
defendants violated RCW 19.86.030, which prohibits any "contract,
combination . . . or conspiracy in restraint of trade or
commerce," by agreeing to raise prices and agreeing on production
levels in the market for CRTs (cathode ray tubes), the dominant
display technology used in televisions and computer monitors
before the advent of LCD (liquid crystal display) panels and
plasma display technologies.  Due to this unlawful conspiracy, the
State alleges, Washington consumers and the State of Washington
itself paid supracompetitive prices for CRT products. The
complaint sought "damages, restitution, civil penalties, costs and
fees, and injunctive relief."

David C. Lundsgaard -- david.lundsgaard@millernash.com -- Miller
Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way Ste 300,
Seattle, WA, 98121-1128; Robert Douglas Stewart --
stewart@kiplinglawgroup.com -- Kipling Law Group PLLC, 4464
Fremont Ave N. Ste 300, Seattle, WA, 98103-7291; Aaron Streett --
aaron.streett@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts, One Shell Plaza, 910
Louisiana Street, Houston, TX, 77002-4995; J. Mark Little --
mark.little@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts, LLP, One Shell Plaza,
910 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX, 77002-4995; Bradford J. Axel --
bradford.axel@stokeslaw.com -- Stokes Lawrence PS, 1420 5th Ave
Ste 3000, Seattle, WA, 98101-2393; Mathew Lane Harrington --
mathew.harrington@stokeslaw.com -- Stokes Lawrence, PS, 1420 5th
Ave Ste 3000, Seattle, WA, 98101-2393; Dana E. Foster --
defoster@whitecase.com -- Attorney At Law, 701 Thirteenth Street,
N.W., Washington, DC, 20005; Lucius B. Lau -- alau@whitecase.com
-- Attorney At Law, 701 Thireenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC,
20005; Molly a Terwilliger -- mterwilliger@yarmuth.com -- Yarmuth
Wilsdon PLLC, 1420 5th Ave Ste 1400, Seattle, WA, 98101-3336;
Eliot A. Adelson -- eliot.adelson@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, 555 California Street, San Francisco, CA, 94104, Counsel
for Petitioners.

David Michael Kerwin, Washington State Attorney General's Office,
4333 Brooklyn Ave Ne, Seattle, WA, 98195-1016; Callie Anne
Castillo, WA State Attorney General Office, Po Box 40100, Olympia,
WA, 98504-0100, Counsel for Respondents.


LIFETOUCH NATIONAL: Manemett Seeks Back Pay Damages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY MANEMETT, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIFESTOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL
STUDIOS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-03803 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 8, 2016), seeks to recover back pay damages (including unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours payments and unpaid
wages) and prejudgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (FLSA) and New York state law.

The Defendant has an alleged policy or practice of failing to
compensate Plaintiff and the Classes for all overtime hours
worked, travel expense, and travel time.

Lifetouch National is a student photography company with
operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Lauren A. Isaacoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net
                  lisaacoff@bm.net


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Fairness Hearing in "Brown" Suit on Oct. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard L. Voorhees entered an order granting preliminary
approval of class action settlement in the lawsuits entitled JASON
DAVID BROWN, LASZLO BOZSO, and MERIS DUDZIC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.,
and LEXISNEXIS SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC.; and APRIL INGRAM-
FLEMING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, d/b/a LOWE'S, Consolidated
Case No. 5:13-CV-00079-RLV-DSC (W.D.N.C.)

The Parties have submitted a Settlement Agreement and Release that
the Court has reviewed.  The Court finds that the Settlement falls
within the range of reasonability and is appropriate for
preliminary approval.

A hearing on the matter to consider its final approval will be
held on October 31, 2016, at 3:00 p.m., after notice to the Class
Members, at which time the Court will determine whether the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, to
determine whether a final Order and Judgment should be entered in
the Lawsuit.

The Lawsuit is preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes
only, as a class action on behalf of this class, referred to as
the "Pre-Adverse Action Settlement Class," with the constituent
class members known as "Pre-Adverse Action Class Members":

     All natural persons residing in the United States (including
     all territories and other political subdivisions of the
     United States) (a) who submitted an employment application
     to Lowe's, (b) who were the subject of a consumer report
     which was used by Lowe's or its agent to make an employment
     decision regarding such person between May 16, 2011 and
     February 3, 2015, (c) for whom that decision was either a
     rejection or a delay of the employment, and (d) who were not
     provided a copy of that consumer report and/or the mandatory
     disclosures required in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3) before
     that employment decision was adjudicated.

     Specifically excluded from this Class are: (a) all federal
     court judges who preside over this case and their spouses;
     (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the
     Class; and (c) all persons who have previously executed and
     delivered to Lowe's releases of all their claims or all of
     their Pre-Adverse Action Settlement Class claims.

The Court designates Plaintiffs Jason Brown, Laszlo Bozso, and
April Ingram-Fleming as the Class Representatives.  The Court
preliminarily appoints Caddell & Chapman, Consumer Litigation
Associates, P.C., O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora, Co., LPA,
Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Center, PLC, Sellers, Hinshaw,
Ayers, Dortch & Lyons, P.A., Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, P.A., and
Wallace & Graham, P.A. as Class Counsel.

The Court preliminarily appoints American Legal Claims Service,
LLC as the Claims Administrator to administer the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the notification to Pre-Adverse Action
Class Members.  The Court directs the Defendant to compile a Class
List and provide it to the Claims Administrator.  The Court
approves the form and substance of the written Mail Notice.

Pre-Adverse Action Class Members are given the opportunity to
object to or opt out of the Settlement.  All objections to the
Settlement and requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be
in writing, filed with the Court, and served on Class Counsel and
the Defendant's Counsel no later than October 10, 2016.
Submissions by the Parties, including memoranda in support of the
proposed Settlement and responses to any objections, and any
submission in support of a request for an award of attorneys' fees
and costs, must be filed with the Court no later than October 17.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=69W6gtQa


LUCRAZON GLOBAL: Sued Over Alleged Ponzi Schemes
------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
an Orange County businessman defrauded an elderly Californian of
his life's savings of $1.3 million by enlisting Republican Party
luminaries to praise his business, and the 71-year-old man is
facing homelessness, his attorney says.

Josef Kofman's attorney Anne Marie Murphy describes defendant
Alexy Pitt as a serial fraudster in multilevel marketing schemes
and pyramid schemes.

"We brought this case because it's a valid elder abuse claim, but
we also want to publicize that Alex Pitt is taking advantage of
people by creating these companies one after another," Murphy said
in an interview.

Kofman sued Pitt and his companies NetVence, Lucrazon Global and
three other Lucrazon entities in San Mateo County Court.

Kofman, a Russian emigre who worked an engineer, says Pitt took
him for his life's savings, and as a result, "Mr. Kofman is soon
to be homeless."

Pitt too is a Russian emigre, who lives in Laguna Niguel and runs
his fraudulent business out of Irvine, according to the June 21
complaint.

"This case represents one of the most egregious examples of
financial elder abuse imaginable," the complaint begins.

"Defendants stole Mr. Kofman's entire life savings, including
every penny of his retirement savings."

It continues: "Defendants brought in political luminaries
including Mitt Romney (the former governor of Massachusetts and
the Republican Party's nominee for president of the United States
in the 2012 election) and Hector V. Barreto (administrator of the
U.S. Small Business Administration under George W. Bush) to give
the appearance of legitimacy to what they described as a Ecommerce
technology company."

Neither Romney nor Barreto are parties to the complaint.

After meeting through mutual friends in the Russian-American
community, Kofman says, Pitt asked him to invest in his startup,
which he called a revolutionary way for small businesses to
function online.

Kofman says he gave Pitt $695,000 in 2012, $478,351 in 2013,
another $187,400 in 2014, and another $33,860 in 2015. He says the
defendants took all of the money he had in IRAs: $199,145 in 2013,
$38,300 in 2014, and $115,807 in 2015.

His life savings gone, Kofman says, he sent texts and tried to
call Pitt by phone, pleading that if he didn't get some money he
would not be able to buy food, but Pitt ignored him.

"When Mr. Kofman last spoke to Mr. Pitt in May 2016, Mr. Pitt told
Mr. Kofman to be patient -- he would be paid soon and 'Donald
Trump says you need to withstand pressure to be successful in
business," the complaint states.

Though Kofman did not sue the Republican Party bigwigs, he says
some of their ties go deeper than mere puffery.

Barreto became president of Lucrazon in April 2014 and recruited
members of the Latino community to invest money in the operation,
attorney Murphy said in the interview.

Barreto can be seen in a Lucrazon Global promotional video
uploaded to Youtube in June 2014, touting the benefits of Lucrazon
and Pitt.

In the video, Barreto calls Pitt "a real leader in his industry of
electronic payments and credit card processing and of course now
he is the genius the Lucrazon model."

The complaint cites the video, Lucrazon press releases, and an
April 12, 2014 "rebranding" conference at the Los Angeles
Convention Center, where Pitt "brought in Republican luminaries,"
including Romney and Barreto, to give Pitt and Lucrazon "the
appearance of legitimacy."

"There are two types of people being duped," attorney Murphy said.
"There are people who are investing dollars in $1,000 chunks and
the money would go up and down a chain."

Many of them have joined a federal class action suit filed in
Massachusetts. Pitt treated Kofman as his personal "piggy bank,"
preying upon is naivete in business, his age and wealth, Murphy
said.

"They took everything he has," she said. "He is working a night
shift job. He's lived frugally his whole life, living in a one-
bedroom apartment and now he is worried he is going to lose that."

Kofman seeks punitive damages for elder abuse, fraud and breach of
contract.

Lucrazon did not respond to a phone call seeking comment.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Steele" Class Suit in Ontario Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
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 the Company
intends to defend against an Ontario class action complaint by
Sarah Steele.

On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior
Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's
allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment,
(v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii)
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele
did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Steele seeks (i)
compensatory damages, (ii) punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, and (iii) statutory remedies related to the Company's
breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the
Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer
Packaging and Labelling Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety
Act.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' claims in these various
actions and intends to defend these matters vigorously. Given the
uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases
and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things,
class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from these actions.


MAGIC MEMORIES: "Berry" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON M. BERRY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAGIC MEMORIES USA LTD CORPORATION and
DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. BC626006 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 6, 2016), seeks to recover overtime pay and unpaid wages
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff sometimes worked for more than eight hours in a
workday, and Defendants allegedly did not pay them overtime wage
at the rate of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate
of pay.

The Defendants are in the business of providing photography, photo
souvenirs and related products at amusement parks and other
attractions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Jusuf, Esq.
          LAE OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC
          17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: (714) 274 9815
          Facsimile: (714) 362 3148

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892


MAS CAPITAL: Faces "Mubarez" Suit Over MOU Breach
-------------------------------------------------
ABDUL MUBAREZ and ABED AYESH, Individually and derivatively as
Shareholders of VC MANAGEMENT INC., ATM WORLD CORP., ATLAS ATM
CORP. and Members of F.A.M. CAPITAL LLC and ATM WIRELESS, LLC and
on Behalf of All Other Shareholders of VC MANAGEMENT INC., and
Members of F.A.M. CAPITAL LLC and ATM WIRELESS, LLC, who are
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EHAB ZIAD RABAH,
Individually and d/b/a ATM EXCHANGE, ANNA RABAH, TARIK RABAN and
MAS CAPITAL GROUP INC., the Defendants, VC MANAGEMENT INC., F.A.M.
CAPITAL LLC and ATM WIRELESS, LLC, the Nominal Defendants, Case
No. 653317/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 22, 2016), seeks judgment
declaring the rights, duties and obligations of the parties one
unto the other, and in particular, that a Memorandum of
Understanding, executed by the parties is a nullity and
unenforceable as a matter of law.

On March 29, 2010, VC and Domestic Bank, F.S.B. (Domestic) entered
into a letter agreement (Domestic Agreement) in which VC acquired
all of Domestic ATM network which Domestic had in service at the
time. Domestic's network included approximately 1,300 ATMs located
in the States of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine (Domestic Portfolio).
During its operation of its ATM network, Domestic provided the
currency for its machines, which was retrieved and loaded by a
Mount Vernon Money Center Corp., a private cash management service
provider.

Pursuant to the terms of the Domestic Agreement, VC agreed, by and
through Rabah, to obtain its own source of currency to be placed
into the ATMs and armored car or other transportation services via
a subcontractor. Allegedly, Rabah and VC were unable to secure the
necessary bank clearances to acquire a source of currency because
Rabah had a criminal record.

In order to fulfill his obligations under the Domestic Agreement,
Rabah solicited Ayesh and non-party FredWich (Wich) in or about
March of 2010. Ayesh, along with Wich and Mubarez, each owned a
one-third interest in F.A.M. Rabah solicited Wich and Ayesh about
using F.A.M.'s currency supply and cash services network to supply
the currency needed to operate the Domestic Portfolio. Rabah never
disclosed his criminal record to the Plaintiffs or any of the
shareholders of F.A.M. during the negotiations.

On July 1, 2010, Plaintiffs and non-party Wich, individually and
on behalf of F.A.M., non-party Ramesh Mahajan (Mahajan)
individually, and Rabah, individually and on behalf of VC,
executed an agreement entitled "Stock Exchange Agreement Relating
to VC Management, Inc." (Stock Exchange Agreement). Pursuant to
the Stock Exchange Agreement, the parties agreed that, in exchange
for consideration, the sufficiency of which was recited and duly
acknowledge, F.A.M. would convert its 50% economic interest in the
Domestic Portfolio into 50% direct stock ownership interest in VC.
F.A.M. agreed to transfer this direct stock ownership to
Plaintiffs and non-party Wich individually, in equal amounts.
Rabah, who held 100% of the 200 outstanding VC shares, agreed to
transfer, convey and assign all of this right, title and ownership
interest in 46.5% of the outstanding stock to Plaintiffs and Wich,
to be divided equally among them, pursuant to the terms of the
Stock Exchange Agreement. Pursuant to a separate employment, 7% of
VC shares was to be transferred to Mahajan.

Contrary to defendant Rabah's assertion, no exclusive undocumented
agreement between Rabah and Domestic Bank ever existed. At all
relevant times, VC owned the entire Domestic Portfolio, which
included all of the ATMs, including the Merchant Machines, income
from all of the ATMs and any other rights, title and interests
acquired pursuant to the Domestic Agreement, which are exclusively
held by VC, unencumbered by any ownership interest or entitlement
by Rabah. In an effort to deceive and induce Plaintiffs into
making Rabah an equal member in F.A.M. and Wireless, Rabah offered
to relinquish his purported "entitlement" to 100% of the Merchant
Machines' income, increase the amount of business ATM Exchange
would cause its agents to transfer to F.A.M., and would increase
Plaintiffs' and Wich's ownership in VC.

Rabah has breached the Memorandum of Understanding by, inter alia,
failing to contribute his ownership interest in the Domestic
Portfolio to Newco within 15 days and by failing to cause VC and
MAS to effectuate a reallocation of ownership interests pursuant
to the Ownership Exchange.

Rabah has breached the Memorandum of Understanding by, inter alia,
failing to use commercially reasonable best efforts to cause all
of the ATM owners associated with Rabah's personal portfolio to
enter into ATM Processing and Vault Cash Agreements with
Plaintiffs' companies, including F.A.M., ATMWorld, and Atlas
ATMCorp., by June 30, 2015.

MAS Capital is an international investment banking and venture
capital group. The company provides capital and investment banking
services to companies with operations in North America, China and
Taiwan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Konopka, Esq.
          MICHAEL KONOPKA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 810
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 385-4800


MDL 1917: Deal with Philips, Panasonic et al. Has Final Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: All Indirect Purchaser
Actions, Master No. CV-07-5944-JST, MDL No. 1917 (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Jon S. Tigar finally approved and confirmed the settlements
with the Phillips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung SDI,
Thomson, and TDA defendants.

"Philips" includes Koninklijke Philips N.V. (f/n/a Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N.V.), Philips Electronics North America
Corporation, Philips Taiwan Limited (fin/a Philips Electronics
Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.), and Philips do Brasil Ltda. (fin/a
Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda.). The agreement
was reached on January 26, 2015.

"Panasonic" includes Panasonic Corporation (flk/a Matsushita
Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.), Panasonic Corporation of North
America, and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. The agreement was
reached on January 28, 2015.

"Hitachi" includes Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Hitachi
America, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., and Hitachi
Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display Inc.). The agreement was
reached on February 15, 2015.

Toshiba includes Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc.,
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America
Consumer Products, L.L.C., and Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc. The agreement was reached on March 6, 2015.

"Samsung" includes Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI America,
Inc., Samsung SDI Brasil, Ltd., Tianjin Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.,
Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., and SDI
Mexico S.A. de C.V. The agreement was reached on April 1, 2015.

The settling Thomson and TDA entities include Technicolor SA
(flk/a Thomson SA) and Technicolor USA, Inc. (flk/a Thomson
Consumer Electronics, Inc.) and Technologies Displays Americas LLC
(f/k/a Thomson Displays Americas LLC). The agreement was reached
on June 10, 2015.

The IPPs initially settled with Chunghwa for $10,000,000 in 2011,
and with LG for $25,000,000 in 2013.  "Chunghwa" includes Chunghwa
Picture Tubes, Ltd.  "LG" includes LG Electronics, Inc.; LG
Electronics USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd.

Both the Chunghwa settlement and LG settlement postponed approval
of the allocation of the settlement funds pending additional
settlements with the remaining defendants.

The Court originally set the case for trial in March 2015. As the
trial date approached or shortly after it was continued, the IPPs
reached settlement agreements with the six groups of Defendants.
The settlements included agreements with:

     Philips for $175,000,000,
     Panasonic for $70,000,000,
     Hitachi for $28,000,000,
     Toshiba for $30,000,000,
     Samsung SDI for $225,000,000, and
     Thomson and TDA (jointly) for $13,750,000,

for a total of $541,750,000 . Including the prior Chunghwa and LG
settlements, the total IPP settlement amount is $576,750,000.

Except for the funds from the Chunghwa settlement, the settlement
agreements propose to distribute the settlement funds on a pro-
rata basis based on the number of claimants, with a proposed
minimum recovery of $25 per person, and a cap on recovery of
treble the damages a claimant has actually suffered.  There will
be no cy pres distribution, no coupons, and no reversion to any
defendant.  Money will be paid to those claimants in states where
the law permits recovery by indirect purchasers (so-called
"repealer states"). The nationwide class -- including both those
in repealer states, as well as those in states whose laws do not
provide for recovery to indirect purchasers ("nonrepealer states")
-- would agree to release all present and future claims for
injunctive relief. The Court previously granted preliminary
approval of these settlements.

In a ruling on July 7, 2016, District Judge Jon Tigar stayed the
distribution of funds from any of the eight settlements pending
final approval of the Chunghwa settlement after hearing objections
at a Fairness Hearing scheduled for November 14, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
The cost of attorneys' fees, expenses, incentive awards, and
legitimate claims may be determined during this interim period,
but no monies may be paid from any common fund until this stay is
lifted without prior permission of the Court.

The Court granted Lead Counsel permission to use up to $100,000 to
effectuate notice to the Chunghwa class and settlement
administration without need for further permission of the Court.

Notice related to the Chunghwa settlement must be completed by
August 1, 2016, and the Court shall conduct a Fairness/Final
Approval Hearing on November 14.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's July 14, 2016 final judgment is
available at https://is.gd/IbFzay from Leagle.com.

Mr. Martin Quinn, Special Master, represented by Martin Quinn --
mquinn@jamsadr.com -- JAMS.

Crago, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Guido Saveri,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Ashlei Melissa Vargas, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw LLP, Christopher Wilson, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Clifford
H. Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP,
Daniel D. Owen -- dowen@polsinelli.com -- Shughart Thomson &
Kilroy, P.C., Daniel L. Warshaw -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Esther L. Klisura --
eklisura@slenvironment.com -- SL Environmental Law Group PC,
Jonathan Mark Watkins, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP, Patrick
John Brady -- jbrady@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Aaron M.
Sheanin -- asheanin@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy -- jmccarthy@lindquist.com --
Lindquist & Vennum.

Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics, Plaintiff, represented by
Betty Lisa Julian, Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc.,
Clinton Paul Walker, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pache &
Silva, Fred A. Silva, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios, Pacher &
Silva, Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri & Saveri Inc., Gianna
Christa Gruenwald, Saveri & Saveri, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., Kathy Lee Monday, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher
& Silva, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Roger
Martin Schrimp, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva &
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP.

Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R.
Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri &
Saveri Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Joseph W.
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP,Niki B. Okcu, AT&T
Services, Inc. Legal Dept., Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer &
Renick LLP, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Terry
Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Adam C. Belsky, Gross Belsky
Alonso LLP,Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Monique Alonso, Gross & Belsky
LLP, Sarah Crowley, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP & Steven Noel
Williams, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Jeffrey Figone, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law
Offices of Brian Barry, Dennis Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP,
Donald L. Perelman, Fine Kaplan & Black RPC, Gerard A. Dever, Fine
Kaplan and Black, RPC, Joseph Goldberg, Freedman Boyd Hollander
Goldberg Urias & Ward PA,Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump
& Prescott, LLP, Josh Ewing, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg
Urias & Ward PA, Julie A. Kearns, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario
N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Matthew Duncan, Fine,
Kaplan and Black, RPC, Veronica Besmer, Besmer Law Firm & Vincent
J. Ward, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward PA.

Chad Klebs, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle LLP,
Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Francis Onofrei
Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP, Lori
Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Law Offices
of Francis O. Scarpulla, Qianwei Fu, Zelle LLP, Richard Michael
Hagstrom, Hellmuth & Johnson, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Princeton Display Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Lee
Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Lindsey H. Taylor,
Carella Byrne, Marisa C. Livesay, Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
Francis M. Gregorek, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Carmen Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by James McManis, McManis
Faulkner, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Marwa Elzankaly, McManis, Faulkner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Samuel J. Nasto, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries
Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence
Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon,Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard
Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP,
Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum.

Craig Stephenson, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries
Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence
Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon,Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard
Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP,
Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum.

David G. Norby, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries
Olson & Flom PA,Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence
Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale,M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard
Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP,
Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum.

John Larch, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson &
Flom PA,Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law
Offices of Lawrence G. Papale,M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch
Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis
Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch,
Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law
Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Gary Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson &
Flom PA,Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law
Offices of Lawrence G. Papale,M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch
Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis
Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch,
Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law
Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Margaret Slagle, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Karon, Karon
LLC,Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace,
Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr., Alioto Law Firm,
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Mary
Gilmore Kirkpatrick, Kirkpatrick & Goldborough PLLC, Theresa
Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Barry Kushner, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Alioto, Sr.,
Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Daniel R.
Karon, Karon LLC,Daniel Joseph Mulligan, St. James Recovery
Services, P.C., Derek G. Howard, Howard Law Firm, Jeffrey D.
Bores, Chestnut & Cambronne, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr.,
Alioto Law Firm, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut & Cambronne & Theresa
Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm.

Brian A. Luscher, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina Alioto-Grace,
Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr., Alioto Law Firm,
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert
James Pohlman, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC, Theresa Driscoll
Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Steven Ganz, Plaintiff, represented by John Dmitry Bogdanov,
Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.,
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Tracy R. Kirkman, Cooper & Kirkham PC.

Dana Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen Styles Rogers, The
Kralowec Law Group, Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum.

Brigid Terry, Plaintiff, represented by Jean B. Roth, Mansfield
Tanick & Cohen, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP,Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence
Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Southern Office Supply, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Gilmur
Roderick Murray, Murray & Howard, LLP, Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC,
Donna F. Solen, Lexington Law Group, Drew A. Carson, Miller Goler
Faeges, Issac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen, Krishna Brian Narine,
Meredith Narine, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP, Steven J. Miller, Miller Goler Faeges, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum.

Meijer, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox
LLP, David Paul Germaine, pro hac vice, Gary Laurence Specks,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers &
Masini PC, pro hac vice, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group PC,
pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Meijer Distribution, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K.
Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan
Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, pro hac vice, Gary
Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael
Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, pro hac vice, Linda P. Nussbaum,
Nussbaum LLP, pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law
Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP &
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Arch Electronics, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J.
Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, Joshua H. Grabar, Bolognese & Associates, LLC,
Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., pro hac vice, Linda
Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum.

Studio Spectrum, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Steven F. Benz,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Collin R. White, Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C, pro hac vice, David Nathan-
Allen Sims, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc. & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Kory Pentland, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna,
Milberg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman Law Corp, Paul F. Novak,
Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew J. Morganti, Milberg LLP, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Peter G.A.
Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Radio & TV Equipment, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa J.
Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLP, Jason Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC,Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Brady Lane Cotton, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christina Diane Crow, Jinks,
Crow & Dickson P.C., J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin &
Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell,
P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon
Methvin, Jr., McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C.,Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A.
Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Colleen Sobotka, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher William Cantrell,
J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael
Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Keith Thomson Belt,
Jr., Belt Law Firm, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert Page Bruner, Belt Law Firm, P.C.,
Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon
Methvin, Jr., McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum,Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson,
Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Daniel Riebow, a Hawaii resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum.

Travis Burau, a Iowa resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth
Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump
& Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum.

Andrew Kindt, Plaintiff, represented by James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP & Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP.

James Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna,
Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP &James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum.

Alan Rotman, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Ryan Rizzo, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna,
Milberg LLP,Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum.

Charles Jenkins, a Mississippi resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, J. Matthew
Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell,
McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin
& Terrell PC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum,Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow &
Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Daniel R. Hergert, a Nebraska resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum.

Adrienne Belai, a New York resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum.

Joshua Maida, a North Carolina resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac
vice, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Rosemary Ciccone, a Rhode Island resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert J.
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP &James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum.

Frank Warner, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum.

Albert Sidney Crigler, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff,
represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Eric
D. Hoaglund, McCallum Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Richard Freeman
Horsley, King, Horsley & Lyons, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Richard
Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Aaron M. Sheanin,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP,Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld
LLP, David Yau-Tian Hwu, Saveri and Saveri Inc., Donald Scott
Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Guido
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Jayne Ann Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle Manning, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Matthew Dickinson
Heaphy, Saveri and Saveri, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP,
Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP, Travis Luke Manfredi, Saveri
and Saveri Inc, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Daniel D. Cowen,
Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum & P. John Brady, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel
Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Robert J.
Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP, Charles Matthew Thompson,
Charles M. Thompson, P.C., Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle LLP, Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Jennifer Susan Rosenberg, Bramson,
Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper &
Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph
Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Judith A.
Zahid, Zelle LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Law Offices of Sylvie Kulkin Kern, Tracy R.
Kirkham, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J.
Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP, Charles Matthew Thompson,
Charles M. Thompson, P.C., Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle
LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle LLP, David Nathan Lake, Law Offices
of David N. Lake, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of
Francis O. Scarpulla, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP,
Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph Mario Patane,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lingel
Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Matthew Duncan,
Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac
vice, Sylvie K. Kern, Law Offices of Sylvie Kulkin Kern,Theresa
Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

State of Washington, State of Washington Attorney General 800 5th
Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 206-464-7030 State of
Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan A. Mark, Attorney
General of Washington, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Electrograph Systems, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Electrograph Technologies Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart
Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Mike
McKool, McKool Smith, P.C.,Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cori
Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP,
pro hac vice, David P. Chiappetta, Perkins Coie LLP, Eric J.
Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP, Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos, Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP, Nicholas H. Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac
vice, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Steven
Douglas Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Alfred H. Siegel, Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee of the Circuit City
Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Brian
Gillett, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., David M. Peterson, Susman Godfrey
LLP, John Pierre Lahad, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny William Carter,
Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, N/A, Susman Godfrey
L.L.P., Jonathan Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff Stern LLP,
Matthew C. Behncke, Susman Godfrey LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert J. Pfister, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff
& Stern LLP, Robert Sabre Safi, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Samuel J.
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner,Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Kenneth S. Marks.

Department of Legal Affairs, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia A.
Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of the
Attorney General,Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney General,
Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum.

Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia
A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of
the Attorney General,Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney
General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Best Buy Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn, Robins
Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon
Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S.
Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J.
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig
Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan
L.L.P..

Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan
LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi
L.L.P., Kenneth S. Marks,Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld,
Robins Kaplan L.L.P..

Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn,
Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill
Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P.,
Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA,William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K.
Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins
Kaplan L.L.P..

Best Buy Stores, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn,
Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill
Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P.,
Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K.
Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins
Kaplan L.L.P..

Best Buy.com LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn, Robins
Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon
Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S.
Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J.
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig
Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan
L.L.P..

Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., K. Craig Wildfang,
Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P..

Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

KMart Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T.
Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Kevin J. Murray,
Kenny Nachwalter PA, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter,Ryan C. Zagare, Kenny
Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Old Comp Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah
Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP &William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner.

Radioshack Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T.
Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter,
Ryan C. Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny
Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA.

Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP,
Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Matthew
J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP,Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Giovanni Constabile, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart
Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Gio's Inc, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and
Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice.

Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP,William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP &William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Sharp Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Colin C. West, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, LLP.

Gloria Comeaux, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC.

Kerry Lee Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski,
Jr., Gergosian & Gralewski LLP & Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Jeff Speaect, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC.

Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod, LLP, Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP,Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod
LLP, pro hac vice,Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP,
pro hac vice.

Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner.

Sharp Electronics Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cheryl
Ann Galvin, Taylor & Company Law Offices, Craig A. Benson, Paul
Weiss LLP, Gary R. Carney, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice,Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company
Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J. Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A.
Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Kenneth S.
Marks, Kira A. Davis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison
LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, LLP.

Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Cheryl Ann Galvin, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, Craig A. Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Gary R. Carney, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan
Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J. Simons,
Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Kira A. Davis, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen E.
Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP.

Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston
& Bird LLP,Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Matthew
David Kent, Alston + Bird LL, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP,
Rodney J. Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr
& Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John Newton, Alston & Bird.

Dell Products L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn
Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston &
Bird LLP, Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LL, Michael P. Kenny,
Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J. Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP, James
Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP &Michael John Newton,
Alston & Bird.

Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller
and Ciresi L.L.P.,Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi
& Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P..

Viewsonic Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah
Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks,Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Samuel J.
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA.

YRC, INC., Creditor, represented by Jeffrey M. Judd, Judd Law
Group.

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., ("Chunghwa PT") is a Taiwanese
company, Defendant, represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, David C.
Brownstein, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Jacob P. Alpren, Farmer
Brownstein Jaeger LLP, William S Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger
LLP & Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., ("Chunghwa Malaysia")
is a Malaysian company, Defendant, represented by Joel Steven
Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP,Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, David C. Brownstein, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Jacob P.
Alpren, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn
& Crutcher LLP & William S Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP.

Hitachi, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas
L. Wald, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, pro hac
vice, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton Wheaton &
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T.
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Irico Group Corp., ("IGC") is a Chinese entity, Defendant,
represented byJoseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.

Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., ("IDDC") is a Chinese entity,
Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Eva W. Cole, Winston
& Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Tillman, Paine Tarwater Bickers &
Tillman, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, pro hac vice, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,
pro hac vice, Douglas L. Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay,
Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP,
pro hac vice, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph
Richard Wetzel, King & Spalding, Kajetan Rozga, pro hac vice, Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP,
Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice,
Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,
Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and
Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges
LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Molly M. Donovan, Dewey &
LeBoeuf LLP.

Samtel Color, Ltd., ("Samtel") is a Indian company, Defendant,
represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., ("BMCC") is a Chinese
company, Defendant, represented by Terry Calvani, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Bruce C. McCulloch, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US
LLP, Christine A. Laciak, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP,
Craig D. Minerva, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP.

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Miriam Kim,
Munger, Tolles & Olson, Brad D. Brian, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case,Douglas L. Wald, Esteban Martin Estrada,
Munger Tolles and Olson, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,
Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Laura K. Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,
Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP & William David
Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented byAdam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ethan E.
Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Baker Botts,
Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Van H.
Beckwith, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice & Erik T. Koons, Baker
Botts LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T.
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP,Courtney C. Byrd, pro hac vice, David
Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP,Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton
Metlitsky, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Haidee L.
Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian
T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, O'Melveny &
Meyers LLP,Courtney C. Byrd, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP,Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton
Metlitsky, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Haidee L.
Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case,David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro
hac vice, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, pro hac
vice, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Gregory
Hull, Law Offices of Steven A. Ellenberg, James F. Lerner, Winston
& Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP,John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P.,Kajetan Rozga, pro hac vice, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, pro hac vice,Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Martin C.
Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Robert
DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal
and Manges LLP & David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose
Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, David E. Yolkut, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, pro hac vice, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole,
Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer
Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr.,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac
vice, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, pro
hac vice, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B.
Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret Anne Keane,
DLA Piper LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
pro hac vice, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice,Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly
Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M. Donovan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello,
Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Steven A. Reiss, Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, pro hac vice,
Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., ("Philips
Brazil") is a Brazilian company, Defendant, represented by Ethan
E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP & Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols,
Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L. Wald,Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant, represented
byAdam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Richard Sutton
Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP.

Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Ian T.
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice &
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T.
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP &
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T.
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton
Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP,James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP,Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, pro hac vice &
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack
Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case,Douglas L. Wald, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton,
pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP &Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White
& Case, Douglas L. Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac
vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Baker Botts,
Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Van H.
Beckwith, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice & Erik T. Koons, Baker
Botts LLP.

LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L.
Wald,Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, William David Temko,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP,
Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Hojoon Hwang, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP,
Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP,Jonathan
Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD &
PORTER LLP, Laura K. Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & YongSang Kim.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil,
Gotshal, & Manges, LLP,A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo
A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm,
pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher
M. Curran, White & Case, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges, pro hac vice, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston &
Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,
John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac
vice, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac
vice, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M. Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Ryan
Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon
D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP,Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo
Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,Jennifer Stewart, Winston and
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac
vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston
and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice &Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Amy Lee Stewart,
Rose Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Diana Arlen Aguilar,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges, pro hac vice,Douglas L. Wald, James F.
Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac
vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac
vice, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice &
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Philips Electronics North America, Defendant, represented by Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP & Erik T. Koons, Baker
Botts LLP.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented byJon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T.
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

Samtel Color, Ltd., Defendant, represented by William Diaz,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp,
pro hac vice &William H. Bave, III, pro hac vice.

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent
Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Charles B.
Sklarsky, Jenner and Block, LLP, pro hac vice, Gabriel A. Fuentes,
Jenner & Block, LLP, Harold A. Barza, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Jory M. Hoffman, Jenney & Block LLP, pro hac vice,
Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP,
Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And
Block LLP.

Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Anna Marie Konradi, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Emily E. Chow, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker
Daniels, pro hac vice, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
pro hac vice & Ryan M. Hurley.

Thomson S.A., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Anna Marie Konradi, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Calvin
L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Emily E. Chow,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Jason de Bretteville,
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre
Baker Daniels, pro hac vice, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Hurley.

PT.MT Picture Display Indonesia, Defendant, Pro se.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Defendant, represented by
Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc, Defendant,
represented byTerrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Charles B. Sklarsky, Jenner
and Block, LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Harold A.
Barza, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jory M. Hoffman,
Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP,
Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And
Block LLP.

Philips Taiwan Limited, Defendant, represented by Erik T. Koons,
Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP,John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Joseph A.
Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, pro hac vice,Stuart Christopher Plunkett,
Baker Botts & Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP.

Philips do Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Erik T. Koons,
Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Joseph A.
Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart Christopher Plunkett,
Baker Botts & Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP.

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP,Charles B. Sklarsky, Jenner and Block, LLP, Gabriel A.
Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Harold A. Barza, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jory M. Hoffman, Jenney & Block LLP,
Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP &
Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC.

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T. Brody,
Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner &
Block LLC.

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party,
represented byBrent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Gabriel A.
Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP,Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP,
pro hac vice, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP & Terrence
Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC.

State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio
Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office & Paul Andrew
Moore, Attorney at Law.

Newegg Inc., Interested Party, represented by Gordon M. Fauth,
Jr., Litigation Law Group.

Atty for Non-Party Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Interested
Party, represented by Dianne L. Sweeney, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.

Sean Hull, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.

Sean Hull, Objector, represented by Timothy Ricardo Hanigan, Lang
Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP.

Gordon Morgan, Objector, represented by Timothy Ricardo Hanigan,
Lang Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP.

Douglas W. St. John, Objector, represented by Andrea Marie Valdez,
Andrea Valdez, Esq. & Joseph Scott St. John.

Dan L. Williams & Co., Objector, represented by Paul Brian Justi,
Law Offices of Paul B. Justi.

John Finn, Steve A. Miller, P.C. 1625 Larimer St. No. 2905 Denver,
CO 80202 303-892-9933, Objector, represented by Steve A. Miller,
Steve A. Miller, P.C..

Laura Fortman, Steve A. Miller, P.C. 1625 Larimer St. No. 2905
Denver, CO 80202 303-892-9933, Objector, represented by Steve A.
Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C..

Rockhurst University, Objector, represented by Jill Tan Lin,
Attorney at Law & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm.

Gary Talewsky, Objector, represented by Jill Tan Lin, Attorney at
Law &Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm.

Harry Garavanian, Objector, represented by Jill Tan Lin, Attorney
at Law &Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm.

Paul Palmer, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.

Donnie Clifton, Objector, represented by Jan Leigh Westfall, Law
Offices of Jan Westfall.

Josie Saik, Objector, represented by George Cochran.

Douglas A. Kelley, as Chapter 11 Trustee for Petters Company, Inc.
and related entities, and as Receiver for Petters Company, LLC and
related entities, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

John R. Stoebner, as Chatper 7 Trustee for PBE Consumer
Electronics, LLC and related entities, Miscellaneous, represented
by Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

State of Connecticut, George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General,
Miscellaneous, represented by Gary Becker, Attorney General of
Connecticut.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, Attorney General of
Massachusetts, Miscellaneous, represented by Matthew Mark Lyons,
Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts.

State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General & Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office
of the Illinois Attorney General.

State of Oregon, Intervenor, represented by Tim David Nord, Oregon
Department of Justice.


MDL 1917: Best Buy Expects to Receive $34MM from Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., 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 expects to
receive $34 million in January 2017 or earlier from a settlement
in the Cathode Ray Tube action.

The Company said, "On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit
captioned In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. We allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing
in violation of antitrust regulations relating to cathode ray
tubes for the time period between March 1, 1995, through November
25, 2007. In connection with this action, we received settlement
proceeds net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $75
million during fiscal 2016. In the first quarter of fiscal 2017,
we settled with the remaining defendants for a total of $161
million, net of legal expenses and costs; $127 million of which we
have received and $34 million of which we expect to receive in
January 2017 or earlier.  This matter is now resolved."

Additional information on the case is available at:

      http://www.crtdirectpurchaserantitrustsettlement.com/

Best Buy Co., is a provider of technology products, services and
solutions.


MDL 1950: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:08-md-01950 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero on July 8,
2016, entered an order and final judgment, fully and finally
approving each Settlement Agreement in the case and all terms
therein. Nothing is intended to modify any term in any Settlement
Agreement or enlarge any right of Class Plaintiffs or the
Releasors as further set forth in this order.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, the Court directs the entry of
judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims of the Class
Plaintiffs as to the Settling Defendants. This Order shall become
effective immediately.

The Court also granted a Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:08-cv-
02516-VM-GW.  The Court ruled that:

     1. Class Plaintiffs' Counsel shall receive a total of
$33,000,000 in attorneys' fees to be paid out of settlement funds
created by six separate settlement agreements reached with
defendants as further set forth in this order.

     2. Class Plaintiffs' Counsel shall be reimbursed
$2,484,198.24 in costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the
prosecution and settlement of this litigation, to be paid out of
the settlement funds created by the Settlements.

     3. Class Plaintiffs' current Lead Counsel (consisting of
Hausfeld LLP, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, and Susman Godfrey,
LLP) shall have the sole authority to allocate and distribute any
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded from the Settlements awarded
pursuant to this Order in a manner which, in the opinion of Lead
Counsel, fairly compensates the Plaintiffs' Counsel's firms for
their services.

     4. An incentive award of $18,000, to be drawn equally from
each of the funds created by the Settlements ($3,000 from each
Settlement per Class Plaintiff), shall be paid to each of the
following named Class Plaintiffs: the City of Baltimore, Maryland
and the Central Bucks School District.

Assured Guaranty Ltd. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13,
2016, that during 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were
filed in federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in
the municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including GICs. These
cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 ("MDL 1950"). Five of these
cases named both AGMH and AGM: (a) Hinds County, Mississippi v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wachovia
Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington County,
Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.

In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss on the federal claims for these five cases, but granted
leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

The Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
filed on October 9, 2013, lists neither AGM nor AGMH as a named
defendant or a co-conspirator. The complaint generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs.

The other four cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged
that the defendants violated California state antitrust law and
common law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market
allocation, thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of
competition in the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in
the cities paying higher fees for these products: (f) City of
Oakland, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of
Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of
Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno
County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.

When the four plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
September 2009, the plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.
However, the complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's
activities. The consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in
part the named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated
complaint. On September 22, 2015, the remaining parties to the
putative class action reported to the MDL 1950 Court that
settlements in principle had been reached, and a motion for
preliminary approval of those putative class claims was filed on
February 24, 2016.

The parties have reported that final settlement with those
remaining defendants would resolve the putative class case. The
settlement fairness hearing for those putative class cases was
scheduled for July 8, 2016. The Company cannot reasonably estimate
the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from
these lawsuits.


MDL 1950: West Virginia Drops Claims Against Natixis Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:08-md-01950 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero on July
12, 2016, approved a stipulation among Plaintiff, the State of
West Virginia, including its public and non-profit entities ("West
Virginia"), and Defendants Natixis Funding Corp. and Natixis S.A.

The parties stipulated by and through their respective attorneys
that all of West Virginia's claims against the Natixis Defendants
shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party shall bear its own
costs and attorneys' fees.  Judge Victor Marrero approved the
Stipulation.


MDL 1950: Status Report on Remaining Claims Due Aug. 12
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:08-md-01950 (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Gabriel W.
Gorenstein on July 15, 2016, indicated that the Court seeks a
report from the parties regarding the status of all remaining
claims in this case so that the Court may set a due date for the
pre-motion conference letter required by Judge Marrero's
Individual Practices for summary judgment motions or, if neither
party to a claim intends to seek summary judgment, a date for the
submission of pre-trial order materials.  The letter or letters
required by this Order shall be filed on or before August 12,
2016, in the lead case (08 Civ. 2516).


MEDICAL RECORD: Illegally Overcharges Postage, "Spadea" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Spadea, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Medical Record Associates, LLC, Case No. 16-2007G
(Mass. Commw., June 24, 2016), seeks to recover monies paid to MRA
which constituted unlawful overcharges for postage.

Medical Record Associates, LLC is a release of information service
provider that offers specialized services in, among other things,
fulfilling medical records requests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Yasi, Esq.
      Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
      FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
      2 Salem Green, Suite 2
      Salem, MA 01970
      Telephone: (617)231-7829
      E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com
              rmazow@forrestlamothe.com


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Has Agreements to Settle 3,900 INFUSE Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28,
2016, for the fiscal year ended April 29, 2016, that as of June 1,
2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately
3,900 of claims in the INFUSE Litigation.

The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 6,000
claimants have asserted or intend to assert personal injury claims
against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving
the INFUSE bone graft product. As of June 1, 2016, the Company has
reached agreements to settle approximately 3,900 of these claims.
The Company recorded an additional expense of $26 million in the
second quarter of fiscal year 2016 related to probable and
reasonably estimable damages in connection with this matter. The
Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within
accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and
other long-term liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets as
discussed.


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Reached Agreements to Settle 6,200 Mesh Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28,
2016, for the fiscal year ended April 29, 2016, that as of June 1,
2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately
6,200 of claims in the Pelvic Mesh Litigation.

The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently
involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against
manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries
resulting from the implantation of those products. Two
subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of
the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The
litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and
cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S.
Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims.

In July 2015, the Company and Bard agreed that Bard would pay the
Company $121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these
claims. The $121 million settlement was recorded as an opening
balance sheet adjustment related to the Covidien acquisition in
the first quarter of fiscal year 2016. That agreement does not
resolve the dispute between the Company and Bard with respect to
claims that do not settle, if any.

As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss
without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard's
obligation to defend and indemnify the Company.

The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800
claimants have asserted or may assert claims involving products
manufactured by Covidien's subsidiaries.

As of June 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle
approximately 6,200 of these claims. The Company's accrued
expenses for this matter are included within accrued certain
litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term
liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets as discussed.


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling Expected in 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28,
2016, for the fiscal year ended April 29, 2016, that a decision
from the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected in calendar year 2017
in the shareholder related matters resulting from the Covidien
acquisition.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit
named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic,
Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014,
Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an
injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In
September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On
January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its
opinion. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order
and opinion granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In
May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of
2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme
Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of
Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted
the Company's petition on the issue of whether most of the
original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative
under Minnesota law. A decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court
is expected in calendar year 2017.


MEMORIAL HERMANN: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Stewart, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Memorial Hermann Health System d/b/a
Memorial Hermann - Texas Medical Center, Memorial Hermann Katy
Hospital, Memorial Hermann Memorial City Medical Center, Memorial
Hermann Northeast, Memorial Hermann Greater Heights Hospital,
Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital, Memorial Hermann Southwest
Hospital, Memorial Hermann The Woodlands Hospital, Case No. 4:16-
cv-01833 (S.D. Tex., June 24, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to properly compensate non-exempt nurses
for work performed during meal breaks.

The Defendants operate a chain of hospitals that provide
healthcare services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      Udyogi A. Hangawatte, Esq.
      KENNEDYHODGES,L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@KennedyHodges.com
              uhangawatte@kennedyhodges.com


MEMPHIS LIGHT GAS: Faces "Everett" Privacy Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the City of Memphis utility provider violates federal law by
printing more than the last five digits of customers' credit-card
numbers on their receipts, according to a class-action lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff Autumn Everett claims in court that the Memphis
Light, Gas and Water Division, or MLGW, violates the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act by how it issues receipts to
customers. She sued the utility in Shelby County Circuit Court on
July 14.

"Defendant, at the point of a sale or transaction with plaintiff,
provided plaintiff with one or more electronically printed
receipts on each of which defendant printed in excess of the last
five digits of her credit or debit card number," the 10-page
complaint states. "Indeed, defendant printed the first six digits
and the last four digits for a total of 10 digits of plaintiff's
card number."

Everett says MLGW exposed her to "at least an increased risk of
identity theft and credit and/or debit card fraud."

The proposed class includes all Tennessee consumers who were given
a MLGW receipt in the past two years that contained more than five
digits of their card number.

Everett seeks punitive damages. She is represented by Brian
Herrington of Ridgeland, Miss.

MLGW did not immediately respond to a request for comment emailed
July 15 afternoon.


MENDEZ FUEL: "Larios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE E LARIOS, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. MENDEZ FUEL HOLDINGS LLC, and MICHAEL MENDEZ, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-22957-JAL (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants allegedly refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants
knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly
failed to investigate whether its payroll practices were in
accordance with the FLSA.

Mendez Fuel operates a gas station in Coral Gables, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. Zidell, P.A.
          Attorney for Plaintiffs
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, Fla. 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


MITEL NETWORKS: Solak v. Leav Lawsuit Filed Over Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Mitel Networks Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June
29, 2016, that following the announcement of the execution of the
merger agreement, a purported stockholder class action, styled
Solak v. Leav, et al., No. 5:16-cv-03128-HRL, was filed on June 8,
2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, which is referred to as the Solak complaint.

The Solak complaint names as defendants current and former members
of the Polycom Board, Mitel, and Merger Sub, which are
collectively referred to as the defendants. The Solak complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose
all material information in connection with the proxy
statement/prospectus that forms a part of Mitel's Registration
Statement on Form S-4. The Solak complaint also alleges that the
current and former members of the Polycom Board violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by acting as control persons of Polycom
in connection with the purported omissions from the proxy
statement/prospectus that forms a part of Mitel's Registration
Statement on Form S-4 described above. Finally, the Solak
complaint alleges that the current and former members of the
Polycom Board breached their fiduciary duties to Polycom's
stockholders in connection with the merger and that Mitel and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duty. In support of these claims, the Solak complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Polycom Board failed to disclose all
material information regarding the merger, that the merger
consideration undervalues Polycom, that the sales process that
resulted in entry into the merger agreement was flawed, and that
the merger agreement contains unreasonable deal protection devices
that purportedly preclude competing offers and unduly favor Mitel.
The action seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining or
rescinding the merger, and an award of other unspecified
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with any
certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
consummation of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting
permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin consummation
of the merger. Each of Mitel and Polycom believes that the
complaint is without merit and intends to contest the lawsuit
vigorously.


MONTEBELLO PLASTICS: Martinez Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONTEBELLO PLASTICS, LLC, AND DOES 1 -
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC626248 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages including
double-time, missed meal and rest breaks, statutory damages and
penalties, civil penalties, prejudgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, restitution, and other appropriate relief for
Defendant's violations of the California Labor Code, and the
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

The Defendants allegedly falsified, altered, edited, and/or
fabricated the time records of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class,
to limit the hours worked sufficiently to eliminate any obligation
to pay overtime or double-time premium wages to Plaintiff and the
Plaintiff Class.

The Defendant is a plastic firm manufacturer that manufactures
bags, sheeting, and tubing products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Lee, Esq.
          Caleb H. Liang, Esq.
          Julie A. Choi, Esq.
          LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612 8900
          Facsimile: (213) 612 3773
          E-mail: james.lee@ltlattoraeys.com
                  caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com
                  Julie.choi@ltlattorneys.com


MTAS INC: "Marcello" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacquelyn Marcello, on behalf of herself and all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MTAS, Inc., and Michael
Tascione, individually and as Chief Executive Officer of MTAS,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-06476 (W.D.N.Y., July 8,
2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation,
spread of hours pay, and statutory penalties under Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Defendants have allegedly paid Plaintiff at a "tipped" minimum
wage rate, a rate that falls below the minimum wage. However, the
Defendants have not satisfied the strict requirements under FLSA
and NYLL that would allow them to pay this reduced minimum wage.

MTAS operates Hooligans restaurant which is a favorite destination
of Milwaukee's pub crowd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
          CORDELLO LAW PLLC
          693 East Avenue, Suite 220
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 857 9684
          E-mail: justin@cordellolaw.com


NEW PRIME: Faces "Shibley" Suit in E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against New Prime, Inc. The case is
captioned Jason Shibley, an individual, on behalf of himself, and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. New
Prime, Inc., and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-at-00535 (E.D. Cal., July 12, 2016).

New Prime, Inc. provides trucking transportation services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NORRISTOWN STATE: Executes Plan Under Mental Health Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Foti, writing for The Reporter, reports that during the
summer of 2014, a Montgomery County judge declared 23-year-old
Jason James Payne incompetent to stand trial for allegedly
attacking his mother, Pamela, with a foot-long butcher knife
inside the East Third Street home they shared in Pottstown.

Mr. Payne waited in jail for four months until there was room for
him at Norristown State Hospital, where he is now being treated
for mental illness.

In 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action
lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services,
with a lead plaintiff listed only as J.H., declaring that any
prison wait of more than seven days violated a defendant's
constitutional rights.

Attorney David P. Gersch, who served as co-counsel to the ACLU on
the lawsuit, said that J.H. spent more than a year on the waitlist
after stealing $3 in peppermint patties.

The lawsuit was settled Jan. 27 of this year, with stipulations
that DHS, which funds Norristown and Torrance state hospitals,
creates 60 new treatment placements for those declared
incompetent.

The state has created 49 new beds in residential treatment
facilities, including Gaudenzia, New Vitae and Girard Recovery
Center.  There is also an action plan that includes 20 new
extended treatment slots, 60 slots for continued care for those
discharged from the hospital and 100 supported housing slots.

The progress, still in its early stages, will take time to have an
impact, Mr. Gersch said.

"In a nut shell, the wait times still have not come down, and that
can be because there are more people in the system, or because
they haven't gotten the DAs to sign off on moving people to places
which the DA may not think is secure," Mr. Gersch said.

WAIT TIMES STILL HIGH AT NORRISTOWN

When asked about the current average wait times for the two state
hospitals, Dennis Marion, Deputy Secretary of the Office of Mental
Health and Substance Abuse Services, referred to the lawsuit which
stated that the average wait time was "at least 60 days."

"Wait times for NSH are significantly longer than for TSH.  We
have not calculated average wait times as we are bringing the new
beds on line," Mr. Marion said in an email, adding that the
numbers are "coming down."

The ACLU continues to work with the state as they execute the plan
laid out in the settlement agreement.  Mr. Gersch said that there
is still concern that the state is not making visible progress.

"Since we have entered into our agreement with DHS, they have been
making efforts to have more beds, and that's very important," he
said.  "We believe that can be a part or all of the solution, but
as of this date, the wait list hasn't come down yet."

SPECIAL COURT PROGRAMS ARE A BENEFIT

Dr. Dale Adair, chief medical officer at Norristown State
Hospital, said that there are steps that can be taken at the
county level to reduce wait times.

"Mental health courts are a good example of ways that prevent
individuals with mental health concerns from going into the
criminal justice system instead of treatment," Dr. Adair said.
"We also know that a significant number of individuals who are
incarcerated may or may not have mental health as their primary
issue."

Montgomery County does have a Behavioral Health Court, as well as
a Drug Court.  Both are specialized judicial programs to offer
defendants treatment options opposed to harsh sentences for minor
crimes.  Dr. Adair said both help reduce waiting times for the
hospital.

"Substance use is a big component, so drug courts, those types of
things, which are geared more towards getting individuals more
into treatment rather than getting them incarcerated, they help,"
Dr. Adair said.

COSTS TO COUNTY CAN BE REDUCED

Montgomery County recently issued a request for proposals for
vendors to supply more treatment options for mentally ill
prisoners.  In the paperwork for the request, the cost of those
with serious mental illness was shown to be higher than those
without.

"In 2008, a sample of 38 inmates with (serious mental illness)
housed at MCCF showed an Average Length of Stay (ALOS) of 230 days
as compared to the general population ALOS of 72 days.  Using the
above ALOS for each population with the jail per diem of $47 per
day, the cost for each person with SMI is $10,810 vs. $3,384 for
the general population," the document states.

It goes on to say that the cost doesn't even include the cost of
psychotropic medication that 32 percent of inmates are taking.

"It is estimated that reducing the length of stay for inmates with
(serious mental illness) to that of the general population would
save the county approximately $7,426 per inmate," the research
stated.

The request also sought ways to keep those with mental illness who
commit minor crimes out of jail in the first place.  One proposal
is to create support plans for those who are capable of showing up
for court dates and other appointments on their own. Another is to
help with access benefits, housing, transportation, treatment and
support services and education or employment to reduce the risk of
committing another crime.

"I think that one part of the problem is that we need to get
people into competency treatment more quickly, the other part of
this is that we want to have anybody who can live in the community
as quickly as possible, with appropriate supports," said Alyssa
Shatz, vice president of advocacy for the Mental Health
Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania.

While community-based options would not change the path for
someone like Mr. Payne, or other violent offenders, it would
create more options for someone who stole $3 worth of candy,
thereby freeing up a bed in a state hospital.

"You have people who are not dangerous taking up a bed in what is
the most secure facility you can have.  The goal is to get people
out of Norristown and into more suitable locations, and getting
people into Norristown who really need it," Mr. Gersch said.

"J.H. was arrested for stealing $3 of peppermint patties, so he
doesn't need to be in a facility that secure. He was a citizen of
Pennsylvania, and he was behind bars instead of getting
treatment."

This is part two of a two-part report defendants waiting to get a
bed in Norristown State Hospital.  Part one looked at the wait and
how it was detrimental to those with mental illness.


NUCOR CORPORATION: Steel Antitrust Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Friedman Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
is a class member of pending steel antitrust class action
litigation brought against certain steel manufacturers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The litigation was initiated by several complaints filed
in September and October of 2008 alleging the defendants
conspired, in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws, to restrict
their output and therefore raise or fix the prices for steel
products sold for delivery in the United States between April 1,
2005 and December 31, 2007. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other
relief on behalf of themselves and the class. In fiscal 2016, the
Company received settlement proceeds of $316,310 related to this
litigation. The litigation continues against the non-settling
defendants, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc. and SSAB
Swedish Steel Corporation, but the Company is unable to estimate
the amount of future proceeds, if any, to be received.


ORACLE CORPORATION: Sue in Cal. Over Imprudent Plan Investment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Tomassini, on behalf of the Oracle 401(k) Savings and
Investment Plan, himself, and a class consisting of similarly
situated participants of the Plan v. Oracle Corporation, Oracle
401(K) Committee, Peter W. Shott, Bruce R. Chizen, George H.
Conrades, Naomi O. Seligman, H. Raymond Bingham, and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:16-cv-03583-JSC (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to protect the
interests of the Oracle 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan's
Participants, specifically by permitting the Plan to continue to
offer Oracle Stock as an investment option to Participants even
after the Defendants knew or should have known that Oracle Stock
was artificially inflated during the Class Period, making it an
imprudent retirement investment for the Plan given its purpose of
helping Participants save for retirement.

Oracle Corporation is a provider of enterprise software and
computer hardware products, and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      9430 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 209-2468
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2087
      E-mail: service@ssbla.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Klein, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com

         - and -

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


PACKERS SANITATION: James Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCELYN JAMES, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACKERS SANITATION SERVICES, LTD.,
INC. (PSSI); and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
RG16822242 (Cal. Super. Ct.), seeks to recover overtime wages,
meal and rest period premium pay, statutory and civil penalties,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Labor
Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt sanitation worker for PSSI
from August 2011 through May 2014 at the Discovery Foods
processing plant in Hayward, California.

The Plaintiff and Class Members regularly worked in excess of
eight hours per workday or in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
PSSI failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members at their
overtime rate of pay.

PSSI provides sanitation services for food processing plants in
the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          Chad Saunders, Esq.
          SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYLE
          428 Thirteenth Street, Eighth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone:(510) 663-9240
          Facsimile: (510) 663-9241
          E-mail: hpyle@ssrplaw.com
                  csaunders@ssrplaw.com


PANDORA MEDIA: Free User Can't Pursue Privacy Claim, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that in answering a certified question from the Ninth Circuit, the
Michigan Supreme Court effectively killed a class action accusing
Pandora Media of violating users' privacy by disclosing their
music taste.

Peter Deacon sued the music-streaming platform Pandora for
allegedly violating Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy
Act by making listeners' profile pages publicly available and
searchable on the Internet.  He claims Pandora "unilaterally
integrated its [listeners] profile pages with their Facebook
accounts," showing users' Facebook friends what they have been
listening to.

Pandora is free, although users can pay a subscription fee to
listen to music without hearing any advertisements between songs.
Deacon, however, only used the free version of Pandora, and
therefore cannot be said to have "rented" or "borrowed" a sound
recording from the service, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled.

"For a listener to constitute a person who 'rents' a sound
recording, he or she must, at a minimum, provide a payment in
exchange for that recording," Judge Stephen Markman said, writing
for the seven-member court.  Nor did Deacon "borrow" a sound
recording, which would require some promise he would "return" the
recording at a later date, according to the ruling.  Therefore,
Deacon does not qualify as a "customer" of Pandora under the PPPA,
meaning that he lacks standing to bring his claims, the judges
found.

The Michigan Supreme Court's unanimous answer to this question
ensures that the Ninth Circuit will affirm the lower court's
dismissal of his suit.


PATCO ELECTRICAL: "Roberts" Suits Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle R. Roberts and Johny L. Smith, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. PATCO Electrical Services, Inc., Case
No. 5:16-cv-00720-M (W.D. Ok., June 24, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

PATCO Electrical Services, Inc. is an electrical contractor
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with locations in and
around Oklahoma and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


PATH INC: Intrusion Upload Class Certified in "Opperman" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar granted in part and denied in part the
motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned MARC
OPPERMAN, et al. v. PATH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00453-JST
(N.D. Cal.).  According to Judge Tigar's Order:

   1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is granted
      as to this class on the Plaintiffs' claim for invasion of
      privacy/intrusion on seclusion:

      Intrusion Upload Class: 14 All members of the Intrusion
      Class that were Path registrants and activated via their
      Apple iDevice (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch) any of the
      Invasive Versions of the iOS Path app between November 29,
      2011 and February 7, 2012.

   2. The Court finds as follows:

      a. The Intrusion Upload Class is sufficiently numerous;

      b. The Intrusion Upload Class is ascertainable;

      c. Questions of law and fact are common to the class that
         predominate over any individual questions;

      d. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the
         Intrusion Upload Class and Plaintiffs are appointed as
         Class Representatives;

      e. Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel will adequately
         represent the Class, have no conflicts with the Class,
         and are appointed as Class Counsel; and

      f. Class Certification is superior to other means of
         adjudication; and

   3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as to the
      Intrusion Class is denied.  The Plaintiffs define the
      Intrusion Class as consisting of:

      All persons in the [United States] who received from
      Apple's App Store a copy of version 2.0 through 2.0.5 of
      the iOS mobile application entitled Path (the "Invasive
      Versions").

In the joint case management statement due on August 2, 2016 by
5:00 p.m., the parties are ordered to propose a schedule for the
remainder of the case through trial.  The Court will conduct a
Case Management Conference on August 16, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

The Action is brought against Apple and other application
developers for alleged invasions of privacy through applications
on Apple devices.  The Plaintiffs challenge the alleged conduct by
Apple and various developers of applications for Apple devices.
The Plaintiffs allege that, between July 10, 2008, and February
2012, they owned one or more of three Apple products -- the
iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.  They further allege that Apple
engaged in a mass marketing campaign in which it "consciously and
continuously misrepresented its iDevices as secure, and that the
personal information contained on iDevices -- including,
specifically, address books, could not be taken without their
owners' consent."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LRFcJgM1


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Updates on Dental Supplies Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that beginning in January 2016,
purported class action complaints were filed against defendants
Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co. and Patterson
Companies, Inc. Although there were factual and legal variations
among these complaints, each alleged that defendants conspired to
foreclose and exclude competitors by boycotting manufacturers,
state dental associations, and others that deal with defendants'
competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D.,
P.A. (collectively, the "putative class representatives") in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled
In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-
CV-00696-BMC-GRB.  Subject to certain exclusions, the putative
class representatives seek to represent all persons who purchased
dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the
defendants, or non-defendant Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.,
since August 31, 2008.

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and Burkhart not to compete on price. The
consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, interest,
and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
expert fees.  Putative class representatives have not specified a
damage amount in their complaint.

"While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we
believe the consolidated class action complaint is without merit,
and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this litigation,"
the Company said.


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Faces "D'Aversa" Class Suit in Dist. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Playtex
Products, LLC f/k/a Playtex Products, Inc., Edgewell Personal Care
Company, and Sun Pharmaceutical, LLC.

The case is captioned Dyan D'Aversa, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Playtex Products, LLC f/k/a Playtex
Products, Inc., Edgewell Personal Care Company, and Sun
Pharmaceutical, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-03813-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., June
24, 2016).

The Defendants manufacture and sell personal care products for
babies, toddlers, teens, and adults.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
      5 Greentree Centre
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 797-9951
      Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Parnes" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Parnes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-03486-MKB-
PK (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a debt buyer based in
Norfolk, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ., P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      Facsimile: (111) 111-1111
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Pollutes South Portland's Air, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Precision Castparts, one of the nation's worst polluters, poisoned
the air in South Portland, Ore., with "hot spots" of carcinogenic
heavy metals and toxic chemicals, residents say in a class action
in Portland, Ore.

Portland-based Precision Castparts Corp. was found to be the
nation's worst industrial air polluter in a 2013 University of
Massachusetts study.

Lead plaintiff Kelley Foster claims the engine- and aircraft
parts-maker has "created a hotspot of pollution, emitting arsenic
and nickel into the air and contaminating homes and businesses."

Exposure to nickel and arsenic can cause a host of health
problems, including lung and nerve damage and fetal injuries.

"PCC [Precision Castparts Corp.] has admitted publicly that its
South Portland Operations emit thousands of pounds of air
pollutants each year. PCC's own records demonstrate that it emits
nickel, arsenic, chromium, and other toxic materials and heavy
metals into the air from its South Portland Operations," according
to the July 8 complaint in Multnomah County Court. Also sued is
PCC Structurals, which works with steel and titanium.

The U.S. Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality in February released studies of air pollution in Portland
that showed PCC as a primary culprit.

The agencies tested moss samples taken from trees for toxic
materials. Moss is an indicator of air quality, as it absorbs
ambient pollutants.

The study has prompted several lawsuits.

A class action against Bullseye Glass Co. in March alleged unsafe
levels of arsenic, cadmium and chromium.

The new complaint states: "Plaintiffs expect the evidence will
show that PCC's South Portland operations are the primary, if not
exclusive, source of the pollution hotspots identified in the U.S.
Forest Service study. Other than the significant hotspot
surrounding the PCC South Portland operations, there were no other
nickel hotspots that appeared in the Forest Service's moss study."

The four named plaintiffs say their homes will continue to be
contaminated even if PCC stopped operating, and the company is
liable for it. They estimate that 5,000 households are members of
the same class.

All the named plaintiffs live within a mile of the PCC foundry.
Plaintiff Debra Taevs lives just a block from PCC, and says she
has "seriously curtailed her use of her garden and yard" since
learning of the contamination.

"Taevs used to enjoy opening the windows of her home when the
weather was warm, and listening to birds in the nearby trees," the
complaint states. "However, now she keeps her windows closed
whenever possible and she has purchased an in-home air filter to
try to reduce her exposure to the neighborhood toxins generated by
PCC."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, preservation of
documents, an injunction ordering Precision Castparts to stop
polluting and to clean up the neighborhood, damages for nuisance
and trespass, and they want PCC ordered to pay for heavy metal
testing for class members who want it.

Precision Castparts called a public meeting in May and described
the efforts it was taking to control pollution, including filters
to remove large particles from its emissions.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Mensher with Keller
Rohrback in Seattle.


PRODUCTION TESTING: "Pamintuan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pamintuan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Production Testing Services, Inc., Case No.
4:16-cv-01831 (S.D. Tex., June 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Production Testing Services, Inc. is a global oil and gas service
company providing flowback and well testing services to clients
throughout 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
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

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


QUIKRETE COMPANIES: "Nolen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID NOLEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE QUIKRETE COMPANIES, INC.; THE
QUIKRETE COMPANIES, LLC.; QUIKRETE HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-02032 (S.D. Tex., July 8, 2016), seeks to recover
all unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to
remedy the alleged extensive and sweeping violations of the wage
and hour provisions which the Defendants have integrated as their
standard payment policies.

The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA mandate that nonexempt
employees be paid one and one-half their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 within a single week.  The
Defendant knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to pay
their employees proper overtime wages.

Quikrete manufactures and distributes packaged concrete and cement
mixes for building and home improvement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


RANOR INC: Seeks Dismissal of Massachusetts Wage and Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TechPrecision Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that on April 7, 2016, certain
former employees of Ranor filed a civil action with the Trial
Court in the State of Massachusetts, individually and as a
purported class action on behalf of certain former and current
employees of Ranor, against Ranor and certain former and current
officers to recover alleged unpaid wages, damages, and attorney's
fees in connection with accrued and vested paid time off. Ranor
has retained outside legal counsel to defend this action
vigorously and, on May 11, 2016, filed a motion to dismiss this
action.

On February 24, 2006, the Company acquired all of the issued and
outstanding capital stock of its wholly-owned subsidiary Ranor.


RAY ENTERPRISES: Faces "Musto" Class Suit in Dist. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ray Enterprises
of Chesapeake Walk, Inc. d/b/a Hobo The Original.

The case is captioned Gina Musto, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ray Enterprises of Chesapeake
Walk, Inc. d/b/a Hobo The Original, Case No. 3:16-cv-03751-PGS-TJB
(D.N.J., June 24, 2016).

Ray Enterprises of Chesapeake Walk, Inc. is an apparels wholesaler
company that provides women's and child's clothing.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark W. Morris, Esq.
      CLARK LAW FIRM
      811 16th Avenue
      Belmar, NJ 07719
      Telephone: (732) 443-0333
      E-mail: mmorris@clarklawnj.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Settlement Hearing in "Pollard" Suit on Aug. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ortrie D. Smith sets a hearing on August 2, 2016, at 9
a.m., in the lawsuit styled IAN POLLARD v. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY,
LLC, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-00086-ODS (W.D. Mo.).  Judge Smith
ordered that the parties should be prepared to discuss the issues
raised by the Court's order entered on December 8, 2015.

On December 8, 2015, the Court cancelled a Final Settlement
Approval hearing, setting forth three main concerns with regard to
the matter's resolution.  The Court ordered the parties to file
supplemental briefing addressing those concerns.  On
June 10, 2016, the parties filed their Joint Supplemental Brief,
which set forth a revised notice plan, addressed the potential
waiver of personal injury claims, and discussed the merits of
potential state consumer protection law claims.

In light of the need to have a second preliminary approval
hearing, as well as revisions to the settlement agreement and
revised notice plan, the parties' Joint Motion to Certify Class
and the Plaintiffs' Fee Application are denied without prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NgZvxa7Y


RITA'S WATER: Brown Seeks Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Sherry Brown and Ericka
Newby, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rita's Water Ice Franchise Company LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-03509-TJS (E.D. Pa.),
move for the entry of an order granting final approval of their
class action settlement agreement.

Sherry Brown and Ericka Newby also ask the Court to enter the
final judgment and dismissal with prejudice in the form agreed to
by the Parties in the Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rw2MuCOX

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Stephen Taylor, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
                  staylor@lemberglaw.com

               - and -

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


SAIGON BAR: Faces "Shao" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Saigon Bar & Grill LLC. The case
is captioned Shao Xiong Jian, individual and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAIGON BAR &
GRILL LLC and SAIGON MARKET LLC, Corporate Defendants, and Hau V P
Nguyen, Johnathan Nguyen, Susan "Doe" (Last Name Unknown),
JOHN/JANE 1-10 DOE(S), and "John" (First Name Unknown) Cui,
Individual Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05556 (S.D.N.Y., July 12,
2016).

Saigon Bar serves a long menu of traditional Vietnamese dishes
served in an unpretentious space with modern decor.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SALOV NORTH: Class of Olive Oil Buyers Certified in "Kumar" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit entitled ROHINI KUMAR,
individually and on behalf of the general public and those
similarly situated v. SALOV NORTH AMERICA CORP., Case No. 4:14-cv-
02411-YGR (N.D. Cal.).  The certified class is defined as:

     All purchasers in California of liquid Filippo Berio brand
     olive oil of any grade except "Organic" between May 23,
     2010, and June 30, 2015.

Rohini Kumar brought the Motion for Class Certification of a
proposed class of purchasers of olive oil based on alleged
mislabeling as "Imported from Italy."  Ms. Kumar alleges that the
class was deceived by misleading labeling stating that the
products were "Imported from Italy" because the oil is actually
produced in Tunisia, Greece, and Spain, then shipped to Italy,
mixed with a small amount of Italian olive oil, bottled, and sold
to consumers.  She alleges that this conduct violates California's
Unfair Competition law and False Advertising, and entitles her to
damages and restitution.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oK4G2Fct


SAN JOSE, CA: Trump Supporters Sue Police Over Political Rally
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
14 Donald Trump supporters sued San Jose in a federal class action
July 14, claiming police directed them into an angry mob that
assaulted them after a political rally, because city officials are
hostile to their political beliefs.

The plaintiffs, led by Juan Hernandez, say San Jose's mayor and
police chief deliberately sent them into a crowd of angry
protestors after a June 2 Trump rally, because of hostility to
Trump and the Republican Party.

Hernandez notes that San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo is "a registered
Democrat and an outspoken critic of Trump."

The class action also takes aim at Police Chief Eddie Garcia, in
his individual capacity, like Liccardo.  And they sued Anthony Yi,
24, of San Jose, who was arrested and charged with assault after
the rally, and two minors, identified only by initials.

"Defendants not only failed to protect those attending the Trump
rally, but created the danger that ultimately harmed the class
members and deprived them of their constitutional and statutory
rights," the complaint states.

When the rally ended, Trump supporters were told to leave through
the northeast exit of the McEnery Convention Center in downtown
San Jose. Outside, San Jose police officers, many in riot gear,
directed them north along Market Street, while barricading the
street to prevent them from turning south. This forced them to
head directly "into the crowd of violent anti-Trump protesters,"
according to the complaint.

Chaos descended. Many Trump supporters were assaulted by
protestors, and videos of it were posted on the Internet the next
day. Some of the victims caught on video are plaintiffs.

"The class members were chased and subjected to violence,
harassment, and intimidation on the basis of their real or
perceived political affiliations, and several were beaten,
victimized by theft, had objects such as bottles and eggs thrown
at them by the protesters in full view of hundreds of police
officers," the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff Hernandez says he left the rally, followed the
directions of police and was struck in the face and beaten,
suffering a broken nose and other injuries.

"Despite the San Jose police being in close proximity to this
attack, the San Jose police did not intervene or offer their
assistance," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim the police refused to intervene due to the
directions of Mayor Liccardo and Police Chief Garcia.

"The city defendants directed the approximately 250 San Jose
police officers, or other local officers subject to city control,
not to intervene as they witnessed the many violent criminal acts
perpetrated by dozens of anti-Trump protesters," according to the
complaint.

Plaintiff Nathan Velasquez says his "Make America Great Again" hat
was stolen and when he tried to get it back a protestor punched
him in the face, giving him a concussion.

The attack was caught on camera and Velasquez gave an interview to
a reporter, while his attacker remained across the street
indicating he would continue the attack once the interview ceased.

Velasquez repaired to the police line to elude the protestors, he
says in the complaint.

An anonymous 14-year-old victim was hit in the back of the head
twice and when he ran to a San Jose Fire Department truck to ask
for help, he was denied and he was assaulted again, the complaint
states.

"The San Jose Police Department failed to declare the
demonstration an unlawful assembly until a full thirty minutes or
more of violent altercations had ensued, following the conclusion
of the Trump Rally," the complaint states. "It was not until
approximately one hour after the Trump rally's conclusion that
police brought out megaphones and told demonstrators to leave or
face arrest."

The plaintiff also blasted Liccardo for issuing a statement on the
night of the rally, partly blaming Trump for the violence.

"It's a sad statement about our political discourse that Mr. Trump
has focused on stirring antagonism instead of offering real
solutions to our nation's challenges," Liccardo said.

The mayor also denounced the violence, saying, "There is
absolutely no place for violence against people who are simply
exercising their rights to participate in the political process."

The next day, amid a firestorm of criticism, Chief criticized the
violent protestors in a news conference, and said his department
would use video evidence to bring the assailants to justice.

"What happened last night was disgraceful and we are not going to
tolerate it," Garcia said at the June 3 press conference. "Those
responsible for doing what they did have no place in the city of
San Jose."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, potentially including
"all persons who attended the June 2, 2016 Trump rally at the
McEnery Convention Center in San Jose, California, and exited the
rally from the east-northeast exit."

They seek punitive damages for civil rights violations, assault
and battery, and other charges, including negligence and emotional
distress.  They are represented by Harmeet Dhillon in San
Francisco.

A member of the San Jose Police Department directed an email
inquiry to the City Attorney's Office, which did not immediately
respond.


SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Galvan Seeks Certification of Two FLSA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled LUIS ANTONIO ARELLANO
GALVAN, JOSE ALFREDO AVILA TORRES and RAFAEL AARON BRITO MARTINEZ,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SAN
JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF NC, INC., SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT
#2 OF LUMBERTON, INC., SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF PEMBROKE,
NC, INC., ALBERTO FLORES TOLEDANO and EDGARDO FLORES PEREZ, Case
No. 7:16-cv-00039-FL (E.D.N.C.), move the Court for conditional
certification of their claims as two representative Fair Labor
Standards Act classes:

  -- The first class, the Tipped Worker Class, will include all
     of these persons:

     all similarly situated individuals who worked as tipped
     employees of one or more of the Defendants during any pay
     period falling within the three chronological years
     immediately preceding March 10, 2016 and continuing
     thereafter through the date on which final judgment is
     entered in this action and who timely file (or have already
     filed) a written consent to be a party to this action
     pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

  -- The second class, the Salary Class, will include all of
     these persons:

     all similarly situated individuals who were paid a flat
     weekly wage as employees of one or more of the Defendants
     during any pay period falling within the three chronological
     years immediately preceding March 10, 2016 and continuing
     thereafter through the date on which final judgment is
     entered in this action and who timely file (or have already
     filed) a written consent to be a party to this action
     pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

In addition, the Plaintiffs move the Court to exercise its
discretion to implement 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) by facilitating
and approving their distribution of the proposed notice and
consent to sue forms to all putative statutory class members
included in the class definitions.  The Plaintiffs further move
the Court to approve distribution of that notice and consent to
sue form by U.S. mail and through radio announcements in eastern
North Carolina.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court to order the Defendants to post
the notice at the class members' workplaces, and to require the
Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with the full names, date(s)
of employment, job title(s), address, telephone number, location
of employment and date of birth of all putative class members to
allow the Plaintiffs to distribute the approved notice to those
putative members of the statutory classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8nZ54Z9c

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
          PO Box 28068
          Raleigh, NC 27611-8068
          Telephone: (919) 856-2154
          Facsimile: (919) 856-2175
          E-mail: Clermont@ncjustice.org


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Certify "McLendon" Class Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. Leon Holmes denied the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification and court-authorized notice in the
lawsuit styled SIDNEY MCLENDON, individually PLAINTIFFS and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, Case No. 4:15-cv-00752-JLH (E.D. Ark.).

Sidney McLendon brings the action against his former employer,
Schlumberger Technology Corporation, alleging that Schlumberger
failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees for
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He
primarily worked out of the Conway, Arkansas location, and his
proposed FLSA class includes: All Senior Field Technicians and
Expert Field Technicians employed by the Defendant at any time
since December 9, 2012.

The Court held that while plaintiffs made a modest factual showing
that all Service Supervisors were similarly situated, "[t]he
affidavit from one Field Engineer is . . . insufficient to satisfy
the plaintiffs' burden of showing that all other Field Engineers
are similarly situated," citing 333 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1271 (M.D.
Ala. 2004), and Harris v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc., No.
4:11CV00679, 2011 WL 5402763 at *2.

"McLendon's evidence likewise falls short of meeting even the
lenient standard required at the initial stage.  He has failed to
make a modest factual showing that he and others with similar job
duties were subjected to the same policies and practices.
McLendon says that he worked primarily in Arkansas but also in
Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, yet he does not explain how many
times he worked in those states, at how many locations, over what
period of time, or specifically what he saw others doing," Judge
Holmes opined.


"McLendon's affidavits are vague, general and conclusory.
Conclusory affidavits from the sole named plaintiff who had
limited experience outside of his locale will not suffice to make
a modest factual showing that other employees in a multi-state
region are similarly situated for FLSA purposes, especially when
that plaintiff apparently performed different duties than others
in the putative class," Judge Holmes added.

A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xNrTrk5m


SHERWIN P. ROBIN: Faces "Thomas" Suit in N.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sherwin P. Robin & Associates,
P.C. The case is captioned Craig Thomas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sherwin P. Robin
& Associates, P.C., Sherwin P. Robin, Sara G. Robin, Cavalry SPV
I, LLC, and Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02529-AT-AJB (N.D. Ga., July 12, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. Amy Totenberg.

Sherwin P. Robin is a debt collection law firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Talley Gray, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF E. TALLEY GRAY
          3449-E Lawrenceville Suwanee Road
          Suwanee, GA 30024
          Telephone: (678) 428 4868
          Facsimile: (800) 878 0429
          E-mail: talleygray@yahoo.com


SOONER HOLDINGS: Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------
Sooner Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2016, that a Court
has issued an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, and Schedule
Order Related Thereto in the case, In re Syntroleum Corp.
Shareholder Litigation, CJ-201305807.

On June 3, 2014, the stockholders of Sooner Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a
Syntroleum Corporation) (the "Company") approved the sale of
substantially all of the assets of the Company to REG Synthetic
Fuels, LLC ("Purchase Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Renewable Energy Group, Inc. ("REG") (the "Transaction") pursuant
to that certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of December 17,
2013 between the Company, REG and Purchase Sub (the "Purchase
Agreement").

In connection with the Transaction, the stockholders of the
Company also approved, among other things, a Plan of Liquidation
and Dissolution of Syntroleum Corporation (the "Plan") allowing
the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") to, among other
things, (i) establish a liquidating trust for the benefit of the
common stockholders of the Company, subject to the claims of the
Company's creditors, and (ii) transfer the Company's assets to
such trust.

Effective May 6, 2015, pursuant to the Plan, the Board, among
other things, (i) established a liquidating trust known as the
"Sooner Holdings Trust" (the "Trust"), and (ii) transferred all
right, title and interest in, to and under the remaining assets of
the Company to the Trust.

The Company, the Trust, the Defendants (defined below), and Lead
Plaintiff Thomas Victor (the "Lead Plaintiff" and, collectively,
the "Parties") in the class action lawsuit, In re Syntroleum Corp.
Shareholder Litigation, CJ-201305807 (the "Consolidated Action"),
entered into that certain Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release (the "Stipulation," and together with the
proposed settlement of those issues to be approved by the Court,
the "Settlement") and filed the Stipulation in the District Court
in and for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma (the "Court") on June
24, 2016. On June 29, 2016, the Court issued an Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release, and Schedule Order Related Thereto (the
"Preliminary Order").

The Class Action Litigation

On December 17, 2013, the Company and REG announced that they and
the Purchase Sub had entered into the Purchase Agreement. On
December 26, 2013, Daniel Baxter, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed an action in the Court, styled
Baxter v. Syntroleum Corp. et al., CJ-2013-05807 (the "Baxter
Action"), alleging, among other things, that the Company's
Principal Financial Officer, Karen L. Power, and the Company's
Board: P. Anthony Jacobs, James R. Seward, Alvin R. Albe, Edward
G. Roth, Frank M. Bumstead, Robert B. Rosene, Jr. (the "Individual
Defendants"), and the Company had breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with their consideration and approval of the
Transaction, and that REG and Purchase Sub (the "REG Defendants",
and together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants") had
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.

On December 30, 2013, Philip Crawley, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed an action in the Court, styled
Crawley v. Roth et al., CJ-2013-05853 (the "Crawley Action"), and
on January 10, 2014, George Kashouh and Thomas Victor, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed an action
in the Court, styled Kashouh et al. v. Syntroleum Corp. et al.,
CJ-2014-00126 (the "Kashouh Action"), each also challenging the
Transaction.

The Court consolidated the Baxter, Crawley, and Kashouh Actions as
the Consolidated Action. The members of the plaintiff class in the
Consolidated Action are, collectively, the "Plaintiffs."

The Parties entered into the Settlement on June 23, 2016 and filed
the Stipulation in Court on June 24, 2016.

The Proposed Settlement

The maximum "Settlement Fund" for the class under the Consolidated
Action (the "Class") is $2.8 million. After subtracting out any
Court-approved attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and any
recoveries attributable to members of the Class who opt out of the
Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund"), each Class member's actual
recovery will be based on the Plan of Allocation.

A "Settlement Administrator" to be approved by the Parties would
distribute or cause to be distributed the Net Settlement Fund to
the Trust; the Net Settlement Fund would in turn be distributed,
pro rata, to the holders of record of Company stock as of June 11,
2014 who have not opted out of the Settlement and who are eligible
to receive distributions from the Net Settlement Fund; provided,
however, that no distributions from the Net Settlement Fund would
be made to those Class members who were the beneficial owners of
less than one (1) share of Company stock as of June 11, 2014 (the
"Plan of Allocation"). The Settlement Fund would be funded within
the later of ten (10) calendar days after the date upon which the
Effective Date (defined below) has occurred and thirty (30) days
after the Individual Defendants' insurer has received all
information necessary to process the payment.

Any person falling within the definition of the Class may, upon
request, be excluded from or "opt out" of the Class. Any such
person must submit to the Settlement Administrator a request for
exclusion ("Request for Exclusion"), by First-Class Mail, or hand-
delivered such that it is received no later than ten (10) calendar
days before the Settlement Hearing (defined below). All persons
who submit valid and timely Requests for Exclusion would have no
rights under the Stipulation, would not share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, would not be bound by the Stipulation
or any final judgment, and their pro rata share of the Settlement
Fund would be deducted from the Settlement Fund and excluded from
the Net Settlement Fund.

The "Effective Date" would be the first day after which all of the
following events and conditions of the Stipulation have been met
or have occurred: (a) Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendants'
respective counsel have executed the Stipulation; (b) the Court
has conditionally certified the Class, preliminarily approved the
Stipulation, and approved the notice to the Class by entry of an
order substantially conforming with the terms hereof and of the
final Stipulation; (c) the Court has issued an Order granting
Final Approval of the Settlement and has signed a judgment
conforming thereto; (d) the signed judgment has become final and
conclusive; and (e) the time expires for filing an appeal from the
judgment, or if the judgment is appealed, any appeal and
subsequent appeal is resolved provided that that such resolution
results in final judicial approval of the Settlement.

Preliminary Order

The Court entered the Preliminary Order on June 29, 2016. The
Preliminary Order provides for, among other things: (i) approval
of the manner and form of notice to the Class; and (ii) scheduling
a hearing for the Court's final consideration of the Stipulation
to be held on October 3, 2016, certification of the Class, and
Plaintiffs' counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses
and an incentive award for Lead Plaintiff, which Plaintiffs'
counsel believes are warranted by the Settlement contemplated
herein (the "Settlement Hearing").

Order and Final Judgment Proposed Under Preliminary Order

If the Settlement is approved by the Court, the Parties have
agreed to jointly seek entry of an Order and Final Judgment (the
"Order and Judgment") substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit C to the Stipulation. The Judgment would, among other
things: (i) certify the Class as an opt-out class pursuant to
Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 12, Sections 2023(A) and 2023(B)(3); (ii)
certify the Lead Plaintiff as the Class representative; (iii)
approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the
best interests of the Class under Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 12,
Sections 2023(E)(2) and 2023.1; (iv) dismiss the Consolidated
Action with prejudice on the merits as against any and all
Defendants, without fees or costs to any party except as herein
may be provided; (v) provide for the release of claims as
described herein; (vi) reserve jurisdiction for the purpose of
effectuating the Settlement; (vii) rule on Plaintiffs' motion for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and incentive award to
Lead Plaintiff as may be made as set forth herein and pursuant to
Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 12, Sec. 2023(G); and (viii) enjoin all
members of the Class from prosecuting or continuing to litigate
any Settled Claim (as defined below) against any Released Person
(as defined below).

Final Approval means that the Court has entered the Judgment and
that the Judgment is final and no longer subject to further appeal
or review, whether by affirmance on or exhaustion of any possible
appeal or review, by writ of certiorari or otherwise, or by lapse
of time or otherwise. If the Judgment is set aside, materially
modified, or overturned, and is not fully reinstated on
reconsideration, reargument, or further appeal, the Judgment would
not become final and conclusive.

The Order and Judgment would provide for the full and complete
release of, dismissal with prejudice of, and a permanent
injunction barring, among other things, any and all manner of
claims, demands, rights, actions, causes of action, liabilities,
damages, losses, obligations, judgments, duties, suits, costs,
expenses, matters, and issues known or unknown, asserted or
unasserted, contingent or absolute, suspected or unsuspected,
disclosed or undisclosed, liquidated or unliquidated, matured or
unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or unapparent, that have
been or could have been asserted in the Consolidated Action, any
of the Actions, or any other court, tribunal, or proceedings
(including but not limited to any claims arising under federal,
state, foreign, statutory or common law, including the federal
securities laws, any state disclosure law or any claims for quasi-
appraisal), by or on behalf of the REG Defendants, Plaintiffs or
any member of the Class or derivatively on behalf of the Company,
whether individual, direct, class, derivative, representative,
legal, equitable, or any other type or in any other capacity
(collectively, the "Releasing Persons"), against the Company,
Trust, Defendants and certain other persons, or any of their
respective families, parent entities, controlling persons,
associates, affiliates, investment funds, or subsidiaries and each
and all of their respective past or present officers, directors,
stockholders, principals, representatives, employees, attorneys,
financial or investment advisors, insurers, consultants,
accountants, investment bankers, commercial bankers, entities
providing fairness opinions, advisors or agents, heirs, executors,
trustees, general or limited partners or partnerships, limited
liability companies, members, joint ventures, personal or legal
representatives, estates, administrators, predecessors,
successors, or assigns (the "Released Persons"), whether or not
each of the Released Persons was named, served with process,

or appeared in the Consolidated Action or any of the Actions,
which any of the Releasing Persons ever had, now have, or may have
had by reason of, arising out of, relating to, or in connection
with (i) the acts, events, facts, matters, transactions,
occurrences, statements, representations, or omissions, or any
other matters whatsoever that were or that could have been set
forth in the Petition, or any of its predecessor petitions in the
Consolidated Action or the Actions; (ii) the Transaction, or (iii)
the Proxy and any other agreements, compensation or disclosures
made in connection with the Transaction (the "Settled Claims").

The Order and Judgment would provide for the release by Syntroleum
and the Individual Defendants of any and all claims or sanctions,
known or unknown, accrued or unaccrued, against the REG
Defendants, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel arising out of or
relating to the acts, events, facts, matters, transactions,
occurrences, statements, or representations, or any other matter
whatsoever set forth in or otherwise related, directly or
indirectly, to the Transaction; provided, however, that the
release would not include any release of the right by the Parties
and the proposed Class members to enforce the Stipulation or the
Settlement, or to opt out, object to or otherwise seek relief
pursuant to Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 12, Sections 2023 or 2023.1
with respect to the Settlement, or the Order and Final Judgment,
or the award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs'
counsel, or to be heard at the Settlement Hearing.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Takes Steps to Ensure Foster Children's Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Post and Courier reports that South Carolina has recently
taken hopeful steps toward ensuring the safety of foster children,
as a result of a class-action lawsuit won by 11 young plaintiffs.
Such measures include placing more children in foster homes rather
than institutions and giving them better medical care.

However, inconsistencies remain where state laws should be
protecting children.

It has come to light over the past few years that more and more
parents who are unable or unwilling to continue caring for their
adopted children turn to the Internet to find them new homes.

This means that some parents place their children in another
person's care with little or no oversight from the state, so
without background checks or living-standard verification for new
caretakers.

Such unregulated custody transfers, also known as "re-homing,"
allows them to bypass strict and expensive legal adoption
procedures.

Since re-homing is unregulated, it is difficult to determine how
many children have been placed under non-adoptive parents' care.
Or what happened to them as a result.

According to a 2013 investigation by Reuters news service, the
U.S. government estimates a 10 to 25 percent failure rate for
domestic adoptions alone.

The same investigation found that 70 percent of online
"advertisements" attempting to attract new guardians were for
foreign-born children, suggesting a higher rate of failure for
that particular group.

While the practice of re-homing is already questionable for
ethical and child development reasons, multiple incidents cited by
Reuters demonstrate how lack of regulation in this area can be
devastating.

In one instance, careless re-homing allowed a woman to repeatedly
obtain children across the country, even after her own infant had
been taken by South Carolina authorities because of her record of
child neglect and further allegations of abuse.

She was finally convicted in another state last year of kidnapping
and transportation of a minor with intent to engage in sexual
activity.

Child-protection systems, such as the Interstate Compact on the
Protection of Children, have proven inadequate to police these
activities.

Carla Damron, executive director of the S. C. chapter of the
National Association of Social Workers, says that lack of
protection heightens the risk of human trafficking.

"Sadly, domestic trafficking is not uncommon in South Carolina --
we have to raise awareness to keep kids safe," she said.  "A child
advertised as being available for 're-homing' would have great
appeal to traffickers."

It should be noted that 60 percent of trafficked children
recovered by a nationwide FBI crackdown in 2013, as part of the
Innocence Lost initiative, were at some point involved with the
child welfare system.

Last September, the federal Government Accountability Office
reported that several states have already implemented laws
restricting re-homing practices by criminalizing unregulated care
transfers.  However, it also concluded that many adoptive and
foster parents agree to "re-home" problem children when they can't
find the post-adoption services that they need when struggling
with those children.

Laws regarding this problem must be clarified and strengthened.

State Rep. Jenny Horne, R-Summerville, sponsored a bill during
last year's session, aiming to regulate the re-homing process. Its
provisions would have given families better access to support
after an adoption and required that any transfers in care be
approved by a family court. Unfortunately, the bill failed to
advance.

Prohibiting the placement of an adopted child in another person's
care without permission of the court would help get unregulated
transfers under control.  Rep. Horne will not be returning to
Columbia next year, but her measure should be revived as the
session begins.

In the meantime, Internet transactions involving adopted children
warrant intensified oversight by law enforcement.


SNAPCHAT: Sexually Explicit Material to Minors, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
14-year-old boy and his mother launched a class action lawsuit
against Snapchat, accusing the social media app of sending
sexually explicit material to minors.

Snapchat, created by Stanford graduates Evan Spiegel, Bobby Murphy
and Reggie Brown in 2011, allows users to instant-message photos
to each other that quickly disappear. The app emerged as "sexting"
was entering the language.

To monetize it, Snapchat began developing and promoting private
content and selling advertising.

In 2015, Snapchat introduced Snapchat Discover, in which content
is generated and promoted by Snapchat and its media partners MTV,
Buzzfeed, Cosmopolitan and others. But rather than moving away
from the "shady world of sexting," the new content exposes minors
to "harmful, offensive, prurient and sexually offensive content,"
Lynette Young says in the July 7 federal complaint.

Young's 14-year-old son John Doe was one of them. He says he
joined the "Snapchat craze" to communicate with friends. It was
his primary method.

On July 1, he says, he was exploring Snapchat Discover when he
found a compilation of Disney images under the title "23 Pictures
That Are Too Real If You've Ever Had Sex With A Penis." The photos
were accompanied by adult-themed jokes and Doe says his "favorite
Disney movies were perverted into obscene sexual images and text."

He saw a story about a performance artist titled "What Is It
Really Like to Let People Finger You in Public," and showed it to
his mother, who was "horrified and shocked" to learn that Snapchat
made such things available to children.

Snapchat claims that its app reaches 41 percent of 18- to 34-year-
olds each day and has more than 100 million users.

According to a 2015 study by the Pew Research Center, 100 million
teens in the United States use Snapchat. Views have grown by more
than 400 percent in the past year and will surpass 18 billion
daily video views by May 2017, according to the complaint, and
nearly a quarter of these are children age 13 to 17.

What are they looking at?

The 32-page complaint provides what it calls a random sample of
content from Snapchat over a three-day period:

Images of dolls in sexual positions;

An article titled "I Got High, Blown and Robbed When I Was A Pizza
Delivery Guy";

An article titled "F#ck Buddies Talk About How They Kept It
Casual";

An article titled "People Share Their Secret Rules For Sex." One
of its rules is: "Do not shove my head towards your dick while
we're hooking up in hopes of me giving you a blowjob. If I'm doing
to do it, I'll do it, so relax. Same applies to butt stuff."

The mother and son say that when Snapchat introduced its new
feature it said that its editors and artists would curate and post
the content, taking it out of the hands of users. The complaint
cites a Snapchat press release: "Snapchat Discover is a new way to
explore stories from different editorial teams. It's the result of
collaboration with world-class leaders in media to build a
storytelling format that puts the narrative first. This is not
social media. Social media companies tell us what to read based on
what's most recent or most popular. We see it differently. We
count on editors and artists, not clicks and shares, to determine
what's important."

But Young and her son say Snapchat does almost nothing to keep
adult content away from minors. Updated Terms of Service for
Snapchat do not address adult content on Snapchat Discover, and
though it has rules about not sending sexual jokes, captions or
cartoons to minors that are created "outside" of Snapchat, it says
nothing about "explicit content found within Snapchat," according
to the complaint.

"The content Snapchat offers on Snapchat Discover consistently
violates Snapchat's own Community Guidelines. If Snapchat were a
user, it would be banned from using Snapchat," the complaint
states.

Young seeks class certification, preservation of records,
restitution and disgorgement, an injunction and punitive damages
for negligence, unjust enrichment, unfair business practices and
violations of the Communications Decency Act.

She is represented by Mark Geragos, who did not return a phone
call seeking comment. Snapchat did not return an email seeking
comment.


SPROUTS FARMERS: "Price" Suit Transferred to Arizona District
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Debra A. Price, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Sprouts Farmers
Market Incorporated d/b/a Sprouts Farmers Markets LLC, Case No.,
1:16-cv-00855, was transferred from the District of Colorado to
the U.S. District Court District of Arizona (Phoenix Division).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02047-DLR to
the proceeding.

Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated operates a chain of healthy
grocery stores with more than 220 locations throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heather E. Joyce, Esq.
      David H. Miller, Esq.
      SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
      1600 Ogden St.
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 839-1650
      Facsimile: (720) 235-5316


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces Concussion Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Ben Leonard, writing for The Rule of Tree, reports that amid
public pressure mounting against the football industry, Stanford
joined the growing list of schools hit with concussion-related
lawsuits.  CBS reports that the Chicago-based firm Edelson PC has
sued Stanford, the Pac-12 and the NCAA essentially for negligence
in terms of protecting player safety.

The filing contends that the school was essentially negligent in
terms of protecting player safety.  Per CBS, Dore argues that all
three defendant organizations.

An ex-Cardinal football player (1972-74), David Burns, is listed
as the main plaintiff in the case.  However, this isn't just for
Mr. Burns' gain -- it looks to gain benefits in return for the
alleged grievances the players on all of Stanford's gridiron teams
suffered from 1959 to 2010.

Stanford responded to the filing with an official statement:

"Stanford was surprised to see this lawsuit purporting to be a
class action on behalf of football players from 1959 to 2010.
Stanford has always acted in the best interests of its student-
athletes and their health and safety has been Stanford's paramount
concern.  Stanford will vigorously defend this lawsuit."

Stanford wasn't the only school to be hit with a similar lawsuit
from this firm -- BYU, Boston College, and UNC Chapel Hill will
also face similar litigation.

In recent years, Stanford has been proactive in trying to solve
the concussion crisis, establishing the Stanford Concussion and
Brain Performance Center in 2014. Dr. Jamshid Ghajar is leading
the effort at Stanford, using research and eye-tracking techniques
to try to cultivate better knowledge about brain injuries.
Stanford professor David Camarillo has also developed a mouthpiece
for the team outfitted with accelerometers, intended to detect
concussions in real time.


STUDENT LOAN: Sued in Cal. Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
Todd Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Student Loan Assistance Center, LLC,
and DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. BC625481 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 6, 2016), seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in negligently contacting Plaintiff's cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant allegedly texted Plaintiff with enough frequency and
regularity as to constitute harassment.

Student Loan provides debt consolidation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Gansen, Esq.
          GANSEN LAW GROUP, P.C
          8272 Sunset Blvd., Suite A
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (424) 201 5625
          Facsimile: (424) 214 1170
          E-mail: chris@gansenlawgroup.com


TAILORED BRANDS: To Defend Against "Makhlouf" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. is defending against a securities class
action lawsuit by Peter Makhlouf, the Company 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.

On March 29, 2016, Peter Makhlouf filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Douglas S. Ewert, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:16-cv-00838). The
complaint attempts to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between June 18, 2014 and December 9, 2015.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the Company and its CEO
made certain statements about the Company's acquisition and
subsequent integration of Jos. A. Bank that were false and
misleading and omitted material facts.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
the lawsuit vigorously.  The range of loss, if any, is not
reasonably estimable at this time.  We do not currently believe,
however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.

The Jos. A. Bank merger is valued at $1.8 billion, according to
reports.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, LLP
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713.227.7720
          E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

                    - and -

          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com

                    - and -

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


TAILORED BRANDS: Lucas Files Notice of Dismissal
------------------------------------------------
In the case, David Lucas et al. v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01631 (S.D. Cal.), a minute entry was entered on
July 15, 2016, by the Chambers of Judge Larry Alan Burns.  The
minute entry says the briefing on Jos. A. Bank's motion for
summary judgment is suspended in light of the July 14, 2016
filings by Lucas and his counsel.  Lucas need not file an
opposition to the summary judgment motion at this time.

On July 14, Lucas filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

Steven Trader, writing for Law360, reported that the consumer
accusing Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc. of inflating its suit prices
to make discounts seem better has offered no evidence that he paid
more than market value, and may not have even bought suits there
in the first place, the retailer told a California federal judge
on June 22, 2016.  In order to succeed on the proposed class
action's sole remaining claim, for restitution under California's
Unfair Competition Law, lead plaintiff David M. Lucas must provide
evidence that the amount he paid for 12 "discounted" suits during
four Jos. A. Bank shopping trips exceeded the market value of what
he received, which he has not done, the retailer said in its bid
for quick judgment.  In fact, Lucas can't even offer concrete
proof that he purchased the suits in the first place, Jos. A. Bank
said.

Tailored Brands, 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 on July 9, 2014, David
Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of themselves and all California
residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action
Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for
Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB JLB).  The Complaint
alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank violated the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price advertising, price
discounts and free apparel promotions.  The Complaint seeks, among
other relief, certification of the case as a class action,
permanent injunction, actual and compensatory damages, restitution
including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment, costs and
attorney fees.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the case.  The range of loss, if any, is not
reasonably estimable at this time.  We do not currently believe,
however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

           HASSAN A. ZAVAREEI, Esq.
           JEFFREY KALIEL, Esq.
           TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
           2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808
           Washington, DC 20036
           Tel: (202) 973-0900
           E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com
                   hzavareei@tzlegal.com

                - and -

          STUART E. SCOTT, Esq.
          DANIEL FRECH, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Tel: (216) 696-3232
          Fax: (216) 696-3924
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
                  dfrech@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          ANDREW R. MAYLE, Esq.
          JEREMIAH S. RAY, Esq.
          MAYLE, RAY & MAYLE
          210 South Front Street
          Fremont, OH 43420
          Tel: (419) 334-8377
          Fax: (419) 355-9698
          E-mail: amayle@mayleraymayle.com
                  jray@mayleraymayle.com

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. is represented by James F. Speyer --
james.speyer@aporter.com -- and E. Alex Beroukhim --
alex.beroukhim@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP.


TARGET CORP: Used Retirees' Money for Stock Buyback, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Target propped up its share
price by spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying its own
shares, imprudently investing employees' retirement money in it,
according to a federal class action ERISA complaint in
Minneapolis.


TEN TWENTY: Faces "Razo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Razo, individually and on behalf of herself and similarly
aggrieved employees v. Ten Twenty Tenth Street LLC d/b/a Sport
Club AV, Ali Aliraqi, Jason Abalthasar, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC625028 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 24, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate Sport Club AV gym in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Mallen, Esq.
      Adrian C. Byrne, Esq.
      EMPLOYEE LAW GROUP
      840 Apollo Street, Suite 311
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 606-0065
      Facsimile: (310) 606-0064
      E-mail: David@employeelawgroup.com


THERANOS INC: CEO Slow to Disclose Problems to Employees
--------------------------------------------------------
John Carreyrou, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
at a presentation to Theranos Inc. employees in June, Elizabeth
Holmes displayed a slide saying the company had developed 304
tests using small volumes of blood, according to an attendee.

Left unsaid: Most of those experiments hadn't progressed beyond
laboratory research, according to the attendee.

The slideshow was part of a pattern: Ms. Holmes has continued to
put a positive spin on her embattled blood-testing company --
while broadly keeping employees in the dark on many issues -- even
as Theranos's regulatory and legal troubles mount.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on July 8 said it
was revoking the certificate of Theranos's flagship California
laboratory and banning Ms. Holmes from owning or running a lab for
at least two years.

Theranos also is under investigation by the U.S. attorney's office
in San Francisco and the Securities and Exchange Commission over
whether it misled investors and regulators about its technology
and operations.

In a statement, Theranos said of the regulatory sanction: "We
accept full responsibility for the issues at our laboratory in
Newark, California, and have already worked to undertake
comprehensive remedial actions," including, it added, shutting
down that lab, adding new medical experts and lab staff and
improving its quality and training procedures and systems.  It
said it is cooperating with all investigations.

Theranos also faces at least eight consumer lawsuits seeking
class-action status.  On July 1, Democratic members of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee called on Theranos to explain how
its "policies permitted systematic violations of federal law" and
how it is "working with regulators to address these failures."

Theranos is contesting the suits. It isn't clear if the company
has responded yet to the questions from lawmakers.

The claim about the 304 tests during the June internal
presentation didn't go unnoticed by some in the assembled staff,
further eroding trust among employees in the Silicon Valley
company's 32-year-old CEO and founder, according to the attendee,
who has spoken with colleagues.

Theranos has conceded to federal health regulators that it
performed just 12 blood tests on its proprietary Edison device and
stopped using the machines in June 2015, documents show.  The rest
of the more than 200 blood tests Theranos offered consumers were
run on commercial laboratory equipment, the documents show.
Theranos tests for conditions ranging from prostate cancer to
cholesterol.

Fading loyalty

Until recently, many Theranos employees had been willing to give
Ms. Holmes the benefit of the doubt.  That loyalty began to fade
when The Wall Street Journal reported in May that Theranos had
voided two years of Edison test results, a person familiar with
the matter says.

That decision, which Theranos communicated to regulators more than
a month prior, hadn't been broadly shared with employees, the
person said.

A spokeswoman for Theranos said the company doesn't comment about
internal employee meetings.

"Theranos' employees, with their talent, dedication and
leadership, are the soul of a company committed to providing
actionable, affordable health-care information.  Their skill and
input have contributed to more than a decade of research and
development, technologies that we are proud to begin introducing
to the scientific community," she added.

Secrecy has been a hallmark of Theranos since Ms. Holmes founded
the blood-testing firm after dropping out of Stanford University
in 2003.  At first, the secrecy was driven partly by Ms. Holmes'
deep admiration for Steve Jobs, who was famous for keeping Apple
Inc.'s products under tight wraps until he unveiled them at
choreographed press events, former Theranos employees said.

Ms. Holmes kept a photo of the late Mr. Jobs on her desk and,
until recently, wore the same uniform of black turtlenecks for
which he was famous.

When Sunny Balwani joined the company as second-in-command in
early 2009, former employees say, the culture of secrecy
intensified.  Departments were separated from one another with
keycards.  Employees were discouraged from discussing their work
with colleagues in other departments, they say.

The silos impeded progress on the company's blood-testing
technology because they prevented Theranos's engineers and
chemists from working as a team to solve problems during the
research-and-development process, the former employees say. In
May, Theranos announced Mr. Balwani was retiring.

Last fall, Theranos general counsel Heather King took issue with
the notion that the company was secretive and had silos. "Theranos
takes great pride in having created a culture of innovation,
collegiality, and collaboration," she said.

While keeping information closely guarded inside the company,
Ms. Holmes was meticulous about the narrative Theranos presented
to the outside world.

In addition to making frequent media and conference appearances,
she hired Academy Award-winning director Errol Morris to film
videos of herself and others for Theranos's website.

As the company's problems have piled up over the past eight
months, Ms. Holmes has continued to tightly control the messaging
internally and externally.

After the Journal first raised questions about the capabilities
and accuracy of Theranos's technology in an Oct. 15 page-one
article, she appeared on Jim Cramer's "Mad Money" program on CNBC
and called the story false.  "First they think you're crazy, then
they fight you, and then all of the sudden you change the world,"
she said.

Later that month, she spoke at the Journal's WSJ.D Live tech
conference in Laguna Beach, Calif., and criticized the Journal's
reporting as "inaccurate," with elements taken "completely out of
context."

Asked about a surprise inspection by the Food and Drug
Administration that had occurred in August and September, Ms.
Holmes insisted that Theranos's withdrawal from commercial use of
tiny tubes it used to collect blood from patients' fingers had
been voluntary.

However, FDA records obtained by the Journal under the Freedom of
Information Act show that the withdrawal of the tubes, which
Theranos calls "nanotainers," was imposed by the agency over the
company's strenuous objections.

The records also show that the inspectors initially were barred
entry to Theranos's Newark, Calif., facility when they arrived
there on Aug. 25. After being asked to wait several hours in a
conference room, they were finally allowed to access part of the
facility under the escort of "a couple of security guards," the
records show.

When a subsequent inspection last fall by the Medicare agency,
known as CMS, found numerous problems in the Newark lab,
Theranos's lawyers insisted that the agency heavily redact the
inspection report before releasing it to the public, citing trade
secrets, people familiar with the matter say.

After weeks of back-and-forth with the company, CMS decided that
Theranos's redaction demands were too broad and released a lightly
redacted copy of the 121-page report in late April.

Inside Theranos, most employees became aware of the report's full
findings only then, according to a person familiar with the
matter.

That month, Ms. Holmes announced the formation of a new scientific
and medical advisory board to advise the company on the
"publication and presentation" of its research "in scientific
journals and at scientific meetings."

The move was applauded by some in the scientific community as a
sign that Theranos was becoming more open to outside scrutiny.

Ms. Holmes required the new advisers to sign strict nondisclosure
agreements, however, and forbade them from speaking to the media,
according to people familiar with the matter.  Though the new
board included five well-respected laboratory scientists, the news
release announcing its creation quoted an orthopedic surgeon.

"It is clear that Theranos has done what people thought was
impossible," the surgeon, David Helfet, who co-chairs the board
with Ms. Holmes, was quoted as saying.  "Theranos's technology is
a groundbreaking feat of science and engineering, making it
possible to accurately analyze micro amounts of blood for the same
tests routinely done today with traditional venipuncture."

Shortly after the new advisory board's appointment, Ms. Holmes
accepted an invitation to present Theranos's fingerprick-testing
technology and clinical data at the American Association for
Clinical Chemistry's annual meeting on Aug. 1 in Philadelphia.

But there was a problem: The company didn't have sufficient data
to present.  The Food and Drug Administration had deemed studies
Theranos had submitted -- other than one for a blood test to
detect herpes -- inadequate, two people with knowledge of the
matter said.  Theranos needed to collect new clinical data to
present at AACC, one of these people said.

Theranos started new studies in May and still is in the process of
collecting and analyzing data from them, this person said.

Ms. Holmes has told employees that she plans on rehearsing her
AACC presentation with them several times before the conference.
When asked by an employee if the June presentation was the first
of these rehearsals, she said no.

Since most of the data from the new studies wasn't in yet, the
preliminary slide deck she showed focused instead on a timeline of
the company's 13-year history, according to the attendee.

As employees listened in silence, she showed slides about the
several generations of blood-reading devices Theranos has
developed and past partnerships it has had with pharmaceutical
companies, the person said.

One slide featured the NASA logo, which struck some employees as
odd because no relationship they knew of had developed following a
demonstration Theranos had made of its device to representatives
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration several years
ago.  A spokesman for NASA said he didn't know what relationship,
if any, the agency has with Theranos.

An employee asked what Ms. Holmes planned to do if the clinical
data Theranos still was collecting didn't fit the company's
narrative.  Ms. Holmes responded, according to the attendee, that
one had to tell the story the data told.

Ms. Holmes has lost weight, which one person who interacted with
her recently sees as a sign of the pressure she is under, and
spends much time with lawyers in a glass conference room at
Theranos's Palo Alto headquarters, this person says.

In addition to Theranos's longtime outside counsel, Boies Schiller
& Flexner LLP, which is handling the consumer lawsuits, Theranos
is using the law firm WilmerHale to advise it about the federal
investigations.

'Eagle 1'

Ms. Holmes maintains a heavy security detail.  Men with earpieces
escort her wherever she goes outside the Palo Alto headquarters.
Their code name for her is "Eagle 1," current and former employees
say. Mr. Balwani, until he retired, was "Eagle 2," they say.

Despite the meetings with attorneys, Ms. Holmes still finds time
to work on her external messaging.  Several weeks ago, she
traveled to New York and met with the television host Charlie
Rose, the person who recently interacted with her said.  Mr. Rose
didn't respond to an email seeking comment.

She has also been talking with Jason Blum, who was executive
producer of HBO's "The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst,"
about a potential documentary that would chronicle her life and
career, people familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Blum's production company didn't respond to an email seeking
comment.


THERANOS INC: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Blood Test Results
-------------------------------------------------------------
L.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Theranos, Inc. and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Case No.
5:16-cv-03571-HRL (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' false and misleading
marketing of the Theranos blood tests and the accuracy of their
test results.

Theranos, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates two
laboratories, one in Newark, California and another in Scottsdale,
Arizona.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
operates retail pharmacy chain in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Lewis, Esq.
      Jacob Richards, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 463-3900
      Facsimile: (510) 463-3901
      E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
              jrichards@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      T. David Copley, Esq.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
              tlin@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Mark D. Samson, Esq.
      Christopher Graver, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      3101 North Central Ave., Suite 1400
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 248-0088
      Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
      E-mail: msamson@kellerrohrback.com
              cgraver@kellerrohrback.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Economic Loss Class Actions at Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that Toyota has been named as a
defendant in 33 economic loss class action lawsuits, which,
together with similar lawsuits against Takata and other
automakers, have been made part of a multi-district litigation
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, arising out of allegations that airbag
inflators manufactured by Takata are defective. These lawsuits are
at an early stage.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeal Over Non-Recalled Vehicle Claims Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that the appeals of the granting
of summary judgment and the denial of class certification of the
claims for the non-recalled vehicles are still pending.

Toyota issues vehicle recalls and takes other safety measures
including safety campaigns relating to its vehicles. Since 2009,
Toyota issued safety campaigns related to the risk of floor mat
entrapment of accelerator pedals and vehicle recalls related to
slow-to-return or sticky accelerator pedals. In March 2014, Toyota
entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA") to resolve
an investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
New York ("SDNY") related to unintended acceleration in certain of
its vehicles. The DPA provides for an independent monitor to
review and assess policies and procedures relating to Toyota's
safety communications process, its process for sharing vehicle
accident information internally and its process for preparing and
sharing certain technical reports.

In 2010, there was a recall related to the software program that
controls the antilock braking system in certain models, including
the Prius, which led to putative class action lawsuits on behalf
of owners of recalled vehicles and owners of vehicles which were
not recalled. The United States District Court for the Central
District of California denied the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and granted summary judgment in Toyota's favor
denying the plaintiffs' claims related to both the recalled
vehicles and the non-recalled vehicles. Proceedings involving the
recalled vehicles have concluded; the appeals of the granting of
summary judgment and the denial of class certification of the
claims for the non-recalled vehicles are still pending.

Personal injury and wrongful death claims involving allegations of
unintended acceleration are pending in several consolidated
proceedings in federal and state courts, as well as in individual
cases in various other states. The judges in the consolidated
federal action and the consolidated California state action have
approved an Intensive Settlement Process ("ISP") for such claims
in those actions. Under the ISP, all individual claims within the
consolidated actions are stayed pending completion of a process to
assess whether they can be resolved on terms acceptable to the
parties. Cases not resolved after completion of the ISP will then
proceed to discovery and toward trial. Toyota has offered the ISP
process to plaintiffs in other consolidated actions and in
individual cases, as well.


TREASURY WINE: Escapes Class Suit Over Litigator's Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------
Kylar Loussikian, writing for The Australian, reports that
Treasury Wine Estates has escaped one of two class action lawsuits
filed against the winemaker after a shock $160 million writedown
and profit warning three years ago, with the Federal Court ruling
the pursuit by controversial litigator Mark Elliott was an "abuse"
of the court process.

It is not the first time Mr. Elliott, who launched the legal
proceedings through his Melbourne City Investments vehicle, has
been reprimanded by the courts.

The Victorian Court of Appeal has previously ordered a permanent
stay on Mr. Elliott's proceedings against Treasury, the world's
largest winemaker, suggesting its predominant purpose was to
enable him to earn fees as a solicitor.

Mr. Elliott, who has pursued a string of companies in the last
three years including Leighton, Myer, UGL, WorleyParsons and
Vocation, said he would seek a review of the decision.

"(Melbourne City Investments) does not agree with this decision,
or any other decision, that any MCI case is not brought for a
legitimate purpose," Mr. Elliott said.

"This proceeding was brought for the legitimate purpose of
vindicating legal rights owed to MCI in its own right and in its
capacity as representative plaintiff on behalf of tens of
thousands of mum and dad shareholders in Treasury who suffered
loss as a result of Treasury breaching the law."

Federal Court judge Linsday Foster, in a decision handed down on
July 8, said it was "likely" Mr. Elliott was aware of the other
proceedings against Treasury as they had been under way for five
months before MCI lodged its claims against the company.

Justice Foster found that MCI's claims were "at best, very weak if
not hopeless".

"(It) plainly does not have the capacity to fund this proceeding
itself and has not attempted to satisfy the court that it has put
in place secure litigation funding which will cover its own costs
and the amount of any adverse costs order," Justice Foster said.

"It is also oppressive and vexatious . . .(and) if allowed to be
maintained, will bring the administration of justice into
disrepute."

Mr. Elliott disputes that characterization, and said MCI "will not
rest until the legitimacy of all of these cases is proved".

"It has both the resources and the determination to see these
cases through to final judgment."

The suit, and another by law firm Maurice Blackburn, was filed
after a share price plunge in mid-2013 slashed the market value of
Treasury Wine Estates by $460m.

Several analysts said it was misleading for the company, which
declined to comment on July 10, to suggest it was affirming market
forecasts.

Credit Suisse analysts, at the time, said the announcement
"reek(ed) of disingenuousness".

Treasury, which had split from its former parent Foster's two
years earlier, produces some of Australia's most recognized wine
such as luxury brand Grange as well as middle-market brands
including Rosemount, Wolf Blass and Lindemans.

The debacle led to the ouster of chief executive David Dearie,
with his replacement Michael Clarke subsequently fending off
approaches from private equity outfits including KKR, Rhone
Capital and TPG.

A spokesman for Maurice Blackburn said its case was "proceeding on
track", with hearings to commence next month.

It is alleging the winemaker knew, or should have known, by August
2012 that large writedowns were inevitable -- but it took until
July the following year for it make an announcement, including
pouring $35m worth of wine down the drain and handing over another
$40m in discounts to middlemen.

"We expect that the court will set a date sometime in October by
which (time investors) will have to sign up if they want to
participate in any settlement of the proceeding," the Maurice
Blackburn spokesman said.


On July 7 the company announced it would divest its non-core
commercial brand portfolio in the US, about 12 brands and one
million cases of wine.

"Over the past two years, Treasury has been taking deliberate
action to manage-down this portfolio of brands," the company said
in a statement.

The divestment is not expected to have an impact on earnings,
which the company expects to be between $330m and $340m for the
financial year.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Unseal Video Depositions, Media Insists
---------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a host of media outlets took Donald Trump to task in Federal Court
in San Diego on July 13, arguing he cannot prove he will be harmed
or prejudiced if they win their push for the release of his
deposition videos in the Trump University class action saga.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel heard arguments from The
Washington Post, New York Times and handful of other national
outlets as to why the videotaped depositions of Trump should be
publicly released.

Trump's deposition was taken for two San Diego class actions
brought by former students of the now-defunct Trump University.
The students in Low v. Trump University and Cohen v. Trump claim
they were defrauded by marketing tactics used by the school as a
"get rich quick" scheme to cash in on the foreclosure crisis.

The Washington Post led the other media outlets last month seeking
the release of deposition videos taken of Trump in late 2015 and
early 2016. Given the prominence Trump University has played in
Trump's stump for president -- with the presumptive GOP nominee's
own public disclosure -- the public interest in viewing the tapes
"would provide the electorate with valuable insight into the
demeanor" of the presidential nominee, the outlets argued in
documents lodged in court.

While the transcripts of Trump's depositions are available almost
in their entirety, the videos will show the nuances of Trump's
response through his gesticulating, facial expressions and tone --
cues that will add context to his answers when he was probed about
his involvement in Trump University, the outlets argued.

But that argument is precisely why Trump has dug in his heels over
releasing the videotapes, claiming he will not only be prejudiced
during the trial -- the first of which is set for late November,
after the presidential election -- but in his campaign for the
White House.

Following a motion to intervene by the outlets, Trump requested
the court make the current protective order, which applies to both
San Diego class actions, even more strict: The candidate wants to
prohibit the filing of any videotaped deposition unless it remains
under seal, and bar the dissemination of any videotaped
deposition.

In the weeks leading up to the hearing, multiple documents were
filed in relation to Trump's motion to amend the protective order
and the media outlets' motion to intervene to get the tapes
released. Among the most outrageous arguments made in hundreds of
pages filed is Trump comparing himself to everyone from late pop
icon Prince, U.S. presidents and even his opponent Hillary Clinton
in arguing for keeping the tapes sealed to avoid a "media frenzy."

The deposition videos were originally filed along with hundreds of
other documents by the plaintiffs' attorney Jason Forge in their
responses to Trump's motion for summary judgment in Cohen v.
Trump. But because Forge did not follow court procedure and seek
leave of court to file the videotapes, Judge Curiel blocked their
release last month.

Curiel was tasked July 13 with deciding whether to allow the media
outlets to intervene in the case for the purpose of acquiring
Trump's videotaped depositions, and if the protective order should
be amended per Trump's request.

Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli took the podium first, telling
Curiel that Trump does not object to portions of the transcript of
his deposition being unsealed, but that removing the protective
order from the videotaped depositions would threaten the
"integrity and fairness of the trial."

Curiel pressed Petrocelli to "walk him through" how disclosing the
videos would impact the proceedings, and Petrocelli said the
"unprecedented dissemination" through various media channels would
be "beyond his comprehension" and would "make the job of picking a
fair and impartial jury difficult."

Subtly pointing out Trump's public comments on the case, Curiel
said, "I don't think anyone would disagree the universe of this
case is massive."

Petrocelli touched on previous comments he's made regarding his
doubt that the "case will see the light of day inside the
courtroom."  He added, "It would be parading evidence in a very
graphic way. This lawsuit is not a vehicle to litigate the
presidential campaign. The court's duty is not to facilitate a
public election, it is to facilitate a fair trial."

Petrocelli also brought up a line of questioning during Trump's
deposition where he was asked his opinion on other politicians and
public figures such as Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, which the
attorney called "utterly improper and irrelevant" and "prejudicial
and inflammatory."

When asked what he thought the videos would be used for,
Petrocelli told Curiel he believed they would be used in political
ads despite the fact that the cases involve "no misconduct against
a sitting official" and consists of "purely private conduct of a
company."

In most cases, Petrocelli added, videotaped depositions are not
released prior to a trial, if at all.

When Dan Laidman -- the media outlets' attorney -- addressed the
court, he pointed out that the harms cited by Trump are "abstract"
and could "really apply to any case," noting that Trump "cannot
show how he will be specifically harmed by the release of the
video depositions."

As to the controversial line of questioning where Trump opined
about Clinton and other politicians, Laidman said "that
information is already public," and added that releasing the
videos will "enhance the accuracy" of the case.

Petrocelli disagreed, saying the "video is ripe to be misused."
He added, "Nobody disputes the unprecedented public attention this
case has and will continue to receive. It makes releasing the
video all the more dangerous. There's all kinds of potential for
mischief."

Trump's attorney also pointed out that no deposition videos were
released in other high-profile cases involving public figures such
as Hillary Clinton, Steve Jobs, Anna Nicole Smith and Prince.

Low and Cohen's attorney Jason Forge told Curiel that "arguing
this matter elevates this motion to a level it doesn't deserve,"
and claimed Trump has failed to show particularized harm or the
specific ways he will be prejudiced if the videos are released. He
said Trump cannot even point to any specific portion of the video
deposition that could be especially damaging if released.

"The elephant in the room is we are living in a visual world, and
no one knows this better than Mr. Petrocelli's client. No one has
exploited that more than Mr. Petrocelli's client," Forge said.

Curiel gave Petrocelli "the last word," which the attorney used to
argue that there is a "false burden" related to the motions to
intervene by the media.

"I can't prove to you there will be a bad jury in this case. But
the risk for ensuring a fair trial will be heightened," Petrocelli
said.

None of the attorneys in the case spoke to the media following the
hearing.

Curiel took the matter under submission and a ruling is expected
soon.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: July 22 Hearing on Motion to Decertify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
former Trump University students suing Donald Trump and seeking
class certification accused the presumptive GOP nominee of "crying
wolf" whenever they file motions to clarify the scope of the
lawsuit.

Trump chastised the class four months ago for allowing former lead
plaintiff Tarla Makaeff to be dismissed from the case, saying it
would "cripple" their ability to defend the case. But now
plaintiffs have requested U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel
confirm "the scope of the class action to be consistent with
plaintiffs' allegations."

Trump claims he will be severely prejudiced because his legal team
has "based their trial, discovery and appellate strategy on the
court's certification order."

But the class fired back, claiming Trump's lawyers didn't
adequately oppose their request to modify the scheduling order to
allow them to clarify the scope of certification.

"Crying wolf is no substitute for honest substantive advocacy,
which is sorely lacking in defendants' opposition to plaintiffs'
motion to modify the scheduling order," the class said in its
reply.

In Trump's motion to decertify the class, he argued the plaintiffs
failed to seek leave before filing the motion with the court and
failed to articulate the relief they seek. But lead plaintiff
Sonny Low and others claim they "plainly state" their motion seeks
to clarify or amend the court's class certification orders.

Low and former students claim in the older of two San Diego class
actions against Trump University they were defrauded by marketing
tactics used to position the school as a way to get rich off the
foreclosure crisis stemming from the Great Recession. Among the
most egregious claims are that Trump University claimed it was an
accredited "university" and that instructors were "handpicked" by
Trump himself.

As to damages, Low and the other plaintiffs claim there is no
request or need for clarification as that will be worked out
during the damages phase if the jury finds in favor of the class.

But the majority of the class's response filing takes jabs at
Trump's argument the plaintiffs' "university" claim is new,
pointing out that "everything is new" to the fourth law firm to
represent Trump in the action.

"Three different law firms represented defendants in this case
throughout the 5 1/2 years it was pending before they enlisted
their fourth law firm," the plaintiffs say.

Trump is now represented by Daniel Petrocelli --
dpetrocelli@omm.com -- with O'Melveny & Myers in Los Angeles.

The claim that Trump University misled students by marketing
itself as a legitimate university "despite it being unlawful to do
so" is not a new allegation, the class says, adding that their
third amended class action complaint was filed with the
"university" claim more than three years before defendants
"enlisted their fourth firm.

The phrase "new to defendant's fourth firm, but not new to the
case" is written multiple times in the filing, reiterating that
the class did not suddenly spring this major claim on Trump and
his attorneys.

A class notice with a description of the case stipulated by both
parties even mentions the "university" claim, the class points
out.

Low and the other plaintiffs are seeking to confirm that the
nature of the "university" claim at trial will be the same as set
forth in the class notice the parties agreed to.

"Defendants' attempt to draw a bright line between their
misrepresentation and omissions is misguided in this context. The
bottom line here is that it was deceptive for defendants to hold
out Trump University as a 'university' because it clearly was not
a university, and it was unlawful to represent that it was," the
class says.

It would have been "irrational" for the plaintiffs to seek
clarification prior to the defendants' April 2016 proposed
pretrial order because the parties previously agreed to the
description of the "university" claim, the class says.

"There was no reason to suspect that defendants' future fourth
firm would advocate such a different, and unjustifiably narrow and
literal, reading of the court's original class certification
order," the plaintiffs claim.

Flipping the script, Low and the other plaintiffs point out that
defendants' new interpretation of the "university" claim would
affect their allegations, briefs in support of class certification
and arguments made in their motion for class certification.
Trump's contention that the "university" claim is a new claim has
"muddied the waters," which led the plaintiffs to clarify that the
court and the parties "got it right" with regard to the class
notice.

A hearing on Trump's motion to decertify the class is scheduled
for July 22.

The case captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants.,
No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG)(S.D. Cal.).


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Gunn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Gunn, on behalf of herself and all other individuals v.
Uber Technologies, Inc. and Travis Kalanick, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01668-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 24, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate the Uber transportation service and
is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business
throughout the State of Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Bruster Loyd, Esq.
      JONES, GILLASPIA & LOYD, L.L.P.
      4400 Post Oak Parkway, Suite 2360
      Houston, TX 77027
      Telephone: (713) 225-9000
      Facsimile: (713) 225-6126
      E-mail: bruse@jgl-law.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Lathan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Lathan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Travis Kalanick, Case No.
2:16-cv-00794-CNC (E.D. Wis., June 24, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate the Uber transportation service and
is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business
throughout the State of Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian H. Mahany, Esq.
      Timothy J. Granitz, Esq.
      THE MAHANY LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 511328
      Milwaukee, WI 53202
      Telephone: (414) 258-2375
      Facsimile: (414) 258-2521
      E-mail: brian@mahanylaw.com
              tgranitz@mahanylaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Secretly Investigated Plaintiff, Lawyers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Brandom and Andrew Hawkins, writing for The Verge, report
that when a young labor lawyer named Andrew Schmidt first filed
suit against Uber in December of last year, he couldn't have
predicted it would make him a target.  Mr. Schmidt's suit was a
legal long shot, alleging that Uber CEO Travis Kalanick
coordinated surge pricing in violation of anti-trust laws -- but
those legal arguments would soon be overshadowed by something much
stranger.

A few weeks after the case was filed, Mr. Schmidt found out he was
being investigated.  According to a court declaration made by Mr.
Schmidt and his colleagues, someone had called one of
Mr. Schmidt's lawyer friends in Colorado to ask some strange
questions, claiming it was for a project "profiling up-and-coming
labor lawyers in the US."  What was the nature of his relationship
with the plaintiff? Who was the driving force behind the lawsuit?
Calls were also allegedly made to acquaintances of Mr. Schmidt's
client, Spencer Meyer, with a similar proposal to profile "up-and-
coming researchers in environmental conservation."

Mr. Schmidt reached out to Mr. Kalanick's lawyers, but they said
Uber wasn't involved, writing back, "Whoever is behind these
calls, it is not us."

A month later, those same lawyers called back to admit that wasn't
strictly true.  Mr. Schmidt and his client were being investigated
by a secretive research firm, staffed by veterans from the CIA and
the National Security Council, on behalf of Uber's top executives.
As soon as the lawsuit was filed, those executives took an
interest in Mr. Schmidt and his client, sending out operatives to
dig up what they could find on Uber's new antagonists.

That investigation has turned into a legal disaster for Uber, and
the presiding judge has already ruled the evidence constitutes "a
reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration of fraud."  The
result is a rare window into how one of the most powerful and
litigious companies in the world responds to a major class action
lawsuit.  As Uber continues to attract new lawsuits and
accusations, the investigation into Mr. Schmidt and his colleagues
shows just how far the company will go to defend its position,
both inside and outside the courtroom.

According to internal Uber emails, the investigation began with a
note from Uber's general counsel, Sallie Yoo.  The day that
Mr. Schmidt filed the complaint against Mr. Kalanick, Ms. Yoo sent
an email to Uber's chief security officer, saying, "Could we find
out a little more about this plaintiff?" The request was forwarded
to the company's head of Global Threat Intelligence, Mathew
Henley.

By the end of the week, Mr. Henley was on the phone with a
corporate research firm called Ergo, also known as Global
Precision Research LLC, asking for help with "a sensitive, very
under-the-radar investigation."  After a few emails, Mr. Henley
worked out the terms of the deal with an Ergo executive named Todd
Egeland.  It would be a "level two" investigation, the middle of
the three levels of work offered by Ergo.  It would be drawn from
seven source interviews conducted over the course of 10 days, for
which Uber would pay $19,500.  As with any Ergo investigation, the
confidentiality of the client was paramount, and sources were
never meant to know who was paying for the research.  "We do quite
a bit of this work for law firms,"
Mr. Egeland reassured him. (Ergo did not respond to requests for
comment.)

There was one other wrinkle, expanding the scope beyond
Mr. Schmidt's client to Mr. Schmidt himself.  "I suggest that you
may also wish for some details on the plaintiff's relationship
with the lawyer," Mr. Egeland wrote to Henley in one email.  "They
outwardly appear to be at least college, if not life-long,
friends."

Mr. Henley approved the deal, writing back, "All looks good guys,
thanks."

From there, the facts of the investigation become less clear.
According to Mr. Schmidt and his team, Ergo contacted 28 different
friends or co-workers of the plaintiff, each time claiming to be
looking for information on "up-and-coming researchers in
environmental conservation" or something similarly vague.  The
plaintiffs say those claims were false, and could be grounds for
fraud.

Uber was treading on dangerous ground by even commissioning the
investigation, some experts say.  "This is a very unusual
situation and one that raises real risks," says Michael Volkov of
the Volkov Law Group, who has written extensively on third-party
due diligence.  "Going around and conducting interviews of people
associated with the case, who may become witnesses, is really
unseemly."

It's not uncommon for firms to do basic background research on a
plaintiff or opposing counsel.  Facebook engaged in a similar
investigation with a firm called Kroll a 2011 case contesting
Mr. Zuckerberg's ownership of the company, although no impropriety
by the investigators was ever alleged.  But that research is
typically conducted through online searches and public records
requests, and anything involving direct contact with possible
parties to the case is seen as far more delicate. "Commissioning
the investigation without meaningful guidance on how it is
conducted shows either naivete or that they just did not care
about complying with appropriate restrictions on such
investigations," Mr. Volkov says.

The judge hearing Uber's case appears to have agreed.  On
June 7th, Judge Rakoff ruled that Mr. Schmidt and his colleagues
had shown enough evidence to provide a reasonable perception of
fraud, giving plaintiffs the right to examine emails and other
documents exchanged between Uber and Ergo.  According to the
ruling, Ergo's investigation was "raising a serious risk of
perverting the process of justice before this court."  With that
ruling, what began as an antitrust case has become a parallel case
about exactly how far Ergo went, and how much Uber knew about it.

The implications go far beyond a single case.  Uber is currently
litigating 70 different federal lawsuits, which range from
accusations of wage theft to fundamental questions of worker
classification.  Any one of those cases could be a tempting target
for third-party research firms like Ergo.  According to a sworn
deposition from an Ergo employee, this was the fourth time Uber
hired the company for research, although it's unclear whether the
other cases involved an active trial.  Given the volume of cases
against Uber and the routine way in which the investigation was
assigned, it's plausible the company was contracting with other
research firms.

It's not the first time Uber has shown an appetite for researching
the company's critics.  In a private dinner in 2014, Uber
executive Emil Michael outlined a plan to spend a million dollars
collecting opposition research on journalists who cover Uber
unfavorably, suggesting the company could investigate "your
personal lives, your families."  Uber's CEO later condemned the
comments, and there's no indication such a program was ever put
into place.

Founded in 2006, Ergo provides data analysis and business
consulting for a range of private clients, according to its
website, but its main goal is the delivery of "ground truth and
actionable intelligence obtainable only from frontline sources."
It boasts of working on 800 projects in 120 countries, from
searching for fraud in Iraqi shipping deals to advising on Ugandan
oil contracts.  It is headquartered in New York City, but has
offices in Phoenix, Arizona and Yangon, Myanmar.

The company's founder, Randolph Post "R.P." Eddy, has a long
history of work in both counterterrorism and diplomacy.  He served
as director of counterterrorism at the White House National
Security Council during the Clinton administration, chief of staff
to US Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, and
senior policy officer for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.  Mr.
Eddy helped found the New York Police Department's
counterterrorism center, serves on numerous boards and think
tanks, and has appeared frequently on national television in his
capacity as an expert on terrorism.
Mr. Egeland, the firm's managing director, testified that prior to
working at Ergo, he served at the Central Intelligence Agency for
28 years.

Uber communicated with Ergo largely over encrypted channels.
Henley explained in one email that this was necessary to "avoid
potential discovery issues." (A subsequent Uber filing
characterizes the reasoning differently, saying encryption was
necessary "to protect against data breaches of Ergo's mail
servers.") Initial emails were encrypted with PGP -- specifically
the Enigmail extension -- but after a number of emails failed to
decrypt, Henley suggested moving the conversation to the encrypted
chat app Wickr, saying, "Nothing's worse than the 30 years of
attempted PGP mail client integrations."

Wickr automatically deletes messages after a preset period of time
(typically 72 hours), and Uber executives have testified that it
is a common tool for internal communications. After Henley's
suggestion, PGP emails dropped off entirely, except to transmit
some preferred legal language three days later and submitting the
final report 12 days after that.

Presented with a court-mandated discovery order, Uber provided
decrypted versions of the PGP emails, but the Wickr conversations
have proven to be more of a challenge. Although email records show
Henley exchanging Wickr screen names with Ergo executives, Henley
denied directly communicating over the service in a sworn
deposition.  Given Wickr's automatic deletion system, that claim
is impossible to disprove.

Uber says it initially reached out to Ergo to assess whether Mr.
Meyer, the plaintiff, posed a direct threat to Mr. Kalanick.
Joe Sullivan, Uber's chief of security, testified that because
Spencer Meyer's antitrust suit specifically named Mr. Kalanick as
the defendant, as opposed to the $62.5 billion company he runs, it
was prudent to look into Meyer's background to see if he "had it
in for our CEO."

"I'm always on the lookout when situations arise that could be a
cause for concern," Mr. Sullivan said.  "And I'm always careful to
make sure that we do our diligence in those situations."

Mr. Sullivan also noted it was "an unusual situation" for
Mr. Kalanick to be named specifically in the suit.  However, Uber
passengers are subject to user agreements that require them to
resolve disputes through arbitration, and suing Mr. Kalanick may
have been a way around that clause.  Tellingly, Uber filed court
documents July 8th that would compel Meyer to settle his case
through arbitration.

Despite Mr. Sullivan's concerns, internal Ergo emails show more of
an interest in reputational damage than physical threat.  In one
of the first available emails sent while compiling the report, a
supervisor asks, "Do we have enough negative things said about Mr.
Meyer [the plaintiff] to write a text box?" When those facts
proved hard to come by, the primary investigator, Miguel Santos-
Neves, eventually replied, "One did say that he was enamored with
ideas and may be unfamiliar with the realities and demands of the
real world." The supervisor replied, "Perfect."

The final report notes that Mr. Meyer "may be particularly
sensitive to any actions that tarnish his professional
reputation."  Neither the report nor any of the available
communications between Ergo and Uber make any reference to Meyer
as a possible security threat to Mr. Kalanick.

On March 22nd, as Mr. Schmidt and his colleagues were demanding
answers on the scope of the investigation, Ergo arranged a private
meeting with Uber's global threat team.  In the meeting, Ergo
acknowledged that the investigation had gone beyond the
appropriate scope, blaming the overreach on "an employee who had
gone rogue" -- apparently a reference to Mr. Santos-Neves.

However, Mr. Santos-Neves testified that his supervisors never
reprimanded him, nor gave any indication that his tactic of
misrepresenting himself in interviews with Mr. Meyer's
acquaintances violated Ergo's protocols.  In fact, he implied that
it was necessary in order to shield Uber's involvement.  "The
confidentiality of our clients is of utmost importance,"
Mr. Santos-Neves testified.  "One of the ways that we maintain
that confidentiality is by, as I said earlier, crafting questions
that can, you know, maintain that confidentiality."  He added, "We
can be sort of vague about our intentions."

In a filing last night, Uber pushed back against the allegations
of fraud, arguing its contract with Ergo had specified that the
investigation be both lawful and professional, and neither
Mr. Kalanick nor Uber had any idea an investigator might stray
beyond that.  "Uber took reasonable steps to ensure that Ergo
complied with the law," the filing reads.  "It is undisputed that
Uber and Mr. Kalanick were unaware that Ergo would use
misrepresentations during its investigation."

Reached by The Verge, Uber declined to comment, as did the
plaintiff's legal team.  Reached briefly by phone on July 7,
Mr. Santos-Neves said, "Please don't call me."  Uber and the
plaintiffs are scheduled to present oral arguments in federal
court in New York on July 14th.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement with Blind Users Wins Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Uber settled two class actions in San Francisco the Northern
District of California, both of which will make the ride-sharing
service safer and fairer for riders.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins on July 13, gave
preliminary approval of a class action settlement between Uber and
the National Federation of the Blind of California, and granted
the organization's motions to certify the class and add nationwide
claims to its complaint.

Plaintiffs Michael Pedersen, Michael Kelly and Michael Hingson
will each receive $15,000 to resolve their state law damages
claims after Uber drivers refused them rides because they had
service animals with them. Uber will also pay the National
Federation of the Blind $225,000 over the 3 1/2 years of the
settlement agreement, and an additional $75,000 if the agreement
is extended a fourth year.

Class members will not receive a payout but will retain their
rights to pursue damages claims.

The plaintiffs accused Uber in 2014 of discriminating against
blind Uber users by allowing drivers to deny rides because of
service animals.

Plaintiffs' counsel Laurence Paradis of Disability Rights
Advocates in Berkeley said there have been 100 instances in which
Uber drivers yelled to blind customers that their animals couldn't
get in the car before driving off. Some blind users have been
refused rides two or three times in a row on the same day, he
said.

Under the terms of the settlement, Uber drivers will be blocked
from receiving trip requests from riders until they confirm
through the app that they understand Uber's new service animal
policy and agree to transport service animals. If they refuse, or
if Uber finds that they refused a rider in person, Uber will fire
them.

Paradis believes that once the new policy goes into effect,
drivers will quickly begin changing their behavior if they want to
keep driving for Uber.

The company has also agreed to provide data to an independent
monitor, who will ensure Uber is complying with the new policy. If
the monitor finds that Uber isn't complying and its drivers are
still refusing to transport service animals, it will ask for
additional policy modifications to ensure that riders with animals
are being picked up.

Paradis called the settlement "groundbreaking" on July 15.

"It's the first nationwide settlement that seeks to make one of
the big sharing-economy companies comply with civil rights laws,"
he said.

Uber on July 14, also agreed to pay $28.5 million to settle claims
that it charges riders a "Safe Rides Fee" without notifying them
first, and that it misrepresents the efforts it makes to keep
riders safe.

In a federal consolidated complaint, six plaintiffs who use the
transportation app also contended that Uber doesn't use the fee to
pay for safety-related services.

Uber denies the allegations, according to the settlement
agreement.

Under the settlement, each class member will be entitled to $1.14.
After costs, class members will receive $0.82.

"However evaluated, the settlement's value on a per-class-member
basis is significant compared to the average initial Safe Rides
Fee of $1.12 paid by class members prior to disclosure of that fee
after their first Uber ride and compared to the maximum potential
recovery, which amounts to $5.33 per class member," the
plaintiffs' attorneys said in the settlement.

Uber will also be prohibited from charging the fee and from
advertising itself as having the "safest ride on the road" with
the "strictest safety standards possible." It also can't advertise
that it screens its drivers for arrests in cases where it only
screens for convictions.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all individuals who
used the Uber app or website to request rides between 2013 and
Jan. 31, 2016 in the United States and who have a U.S. payment
profile.

Attorney's fees totaling 25 percent of the settlement fund or less
will also be sought. Any remaining settlement funds will be paid
to the National Consumer Law Center.

Uber and attorneys for the Safe Rides Fee plaintiffs did not
return requests for comment on July 15.


UNITED STATES: Asylum-Seekers Not Given Due Process, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lacey Louwagie, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal class action in Seattle claims the United States denies
asylum-seekers due process by failing to inform them of the one-
year deadline for filing asylum claims and by erecting procedural
roadblocks.

The four named plaintiffs, refugees from Central and South America
and the Caribbean, were all released into the United States to
pursue asylum claims after immigration agents detained them at the
border.  Immigration agents never told them they had to file for
asylum within one year after they entered the country, nor did
they present a viable path for meeting that deadline, according to
the June 30 complaint.

"Plaintiffs' ability to seek asylum has been thwarted by a
government process that is anything but fair; indeed, it conflicts
with fundamental notions of due process: notice and the
opportunity to be heard," the complaint states.

Concely del Carmen Mendez Rojas et al. say the Department of
Homeland Security and its dependent agencies violated the
Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996.

The 1996 law, a product of President Bill Clinton's
administration, created an expedited removal process for
undocumented immigrants caught within 100 miles of the border,
allowing the United States to deport them without formal removal
proceedings. It allows an exception for immigrants who express a
fear of returning to their home countries. They are to be referred
to Homeland Security agents for a "credible fear" interview to
determine whether they may be eligible for asylum.

These immigrants are exempt from expedited removal and are placed
into standard removal proceedings, where they can develop a record
before an immigration judge, apply for asylum and other relief,
and appeal adverse decisions to the Board of Immigration Appeals
and courts of appeal.

Although immigrants can affirmatively file for asylum, the
plaintiffs say immigration officials did not tell them how to do
so. Many of them believed they had applied for asylum by virtue of
their interviews with Homeland Security.

Most asylum-seekers do not learn about the one-year deadline or
the need to file an application until after they have been entered
into removal proceedings, according to the complaint. Because
immigration courts are notoriously backlogged, an immigrant's
notice to appear -- or charging document -- often is not docketed
until months after Homeland Security submits it.

This leaves the asylum seeker in limbo, the complaint states,
"without a mechanism to file the application until the charging
document is filed with the immigration court, an event over which
the applicant has no control."

By the time asylum seekers finally make a formal claim before a
judge, oftentimes more than a year has passed since their initial
entry, rendering them ineligible for asylum without applying for
special exceptions.

Lead plaintiff Mendez Rojas fled from the Dominican Republic to
escape "egregious" domestic violence from which the government
would not protect her. Co-plaintiff Maribel Suarez Garcia fled
from Mexico for a similar reason, they say in the complaint.

Plaintiff Elmer Geovanni Rodriguez Escobar fled from Honduras
after a gang murdered his nephew, tried to kidnap his daughter and
repeatedly threatened his family.

The plaintiffs seek to represent two classes of immigrants. The
first, the "credible fear class," consists of immigrants who have
been through credible fear interviews but have not been given
notice of the one-year filing deadline or information about
compliance.

The second, the "other entrants class," is comprised of immigrants
who have not undergone the credible fear interview but have been
paroled into the United States by Homeland Security after they
expressed fear of returning to their home countries.

Both classes include immigrants who are involved in formal removal
proceedings and those who are not.

The classes do not "seek a determination as to the merits of their
individual asylum claims," the complaint states, "nor do they seek
judicial review of an order of removal entered against them. What
they challenge are two unlawful procedural deficiencies in the way
that defendants are implementing the asylum process/system --
deficiencies that are unrelated to plaintiffs' substantive
eligibility for asylum, and that deprive many plaintiffs and
proposed class members of the opportunity to present their claims
for asylum to the relevant adjudicators."

They seek declaratory judgment that the federal government
violated the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act,
an injunction ordering the government to submit a plan for
correcting systemic problems in the asylum application process,
and that the federal government "return to the United States any
deported plaintiff or class member whose asylum application was
denied for having failed to meet the one-year deadline."

Defendants along with the Department of Homeland Security are the
U.S. Attorney General, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the
Customs and Immigration Service, Customs and Border Protection,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project, and Dobrin & Han, both of Seattle, assisted by the
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild in
Boston and the American Immigration Council in Washington, D.C.

The lead attorney with Northwest Immigration Rights was out of the
office and unavailable for comment, and the Dobrin & Han attorney
did not immediately respond to a message left with an assistant or
an email request for comment.


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Sued in E.D. Cal. Over Automated Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twonesha Johnson-Hendricks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. University of Phoenix, Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-01434-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal., June 24,
2016), seeks to put an end on the Defendants' practice of placing
calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system without prior express consent.

University of Phoenix is an educational institution located at
1625 W Fountainhead Pkwy, Tempe, AZ 85282, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com


VAHANA SALES: "Martinez" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, v. VAHANA SALES, LLC d/b/a
ESTRELLA DE HOUSTON and EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-02014 (S.D. Tex., July 8, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff's responsibilities included, transporting vehicles
and equipment in addition to some maintenance work. During the
time Martinez worked for the Defendants, he regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek. In fact, Martinez regularly
worked 60 hours or more per week. Martinez was paid on a salary
basis, but was not paid an overtime premium for time he worked in
excess of 40 hours in the workweek. Instead, Martinez was paid the
same salary no matter how many hours he worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868 3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683 9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


VALVE CORP: Promotes Gambling, Florida Class Suits Allege
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a large online video game company allowed and sponsored illegal
gambling by creating a real-world gambling regime hidden in a
gaming black market, according to a number of recent class-action
lawsuits.

The lawsuits, which have so far been filed in Federal Court in
Florida, Connecticut and New Jersey, allege the online gambling
regime was created by Washington state-based online competitive
video game company Valve Corporation, which plaintiffs likened to
a modern-era Captain Renault from the movie Casablanca.

Valve, which organizes several competitive online gaming leagues,
allegedly sold its users chips, known as "skins," which could then
be used as weapons in its "Counter-Strike" game, which has grown
to nearly 400,000 players worldwide.  The skins could be traded
and converted into cash like casino chips, or they could be traded
for similar online currency, such as virtual diamonds or lotto
tokens, through one if Valve's other sites, according to one class
action filed July 7, in New Jersey Federal Court.  The most
expensive skin is priced around $300, according to gaming sites.

However, unlike casino chips, Valve took no risk by selling them
and made a 15 percent fee during each sale through its
marketplace, July 7, lawsuit alleges. Further, the complaint
states, Valve filtered its income through several foreign websites
"in order to maintain the charade that Valve is not promoting and
profiting from online gambling."

"To put it another way, Valve is the barkeeper who allows illegal
gambling operators to set up shop in its backroom and sells chips
for a fee to customers on their way in, but claims it is powerless
to stop the illegal gambling racket and benefits from having a
packed house every night," the 58-page lawsuit states.

Lead plaintiff Jayme Reed says some of the sites had no age
verification process, which meant minors could use the site to
make illegal bets for fake chips that could later be converted
into real currency.

"That most of the people in the [defendants'] gambling economy are
teenagers and/or under 21 make Valve's and the other unnamed co-
conspirators' actions even more unconscionable," the lawsuit
states.

The first class-action lawsuit against Valve was filed in
Connecticut. A second was filed in Florida by the parent of a
gamer, while Reed's complaint is the most recent.

Reed claims to have entered into skins transactions since 2012.
All three lawsuits contain similar allegations.

Others have been caught up in the legal furor. Gaming YouTubers
Tom Cassell and Trevor Martin, who are known online as
ProSyndicate and TmarTn, respectively, were added as defendants in
the Florida lawsuit for their alleged involvement in promoting an
online gambling site without disclosing it to fellow gamers. They
also are named as defendants in the New Jersey class action.

Valve's "Counter-Strike" first-person shooter game series was
introduced in 1999. In 2012, the company released "Counter-Strike:
Global Offensive," in which players could purchase skins through
the company's faux black market "Arms Deal" to upgrade to rare
weapons or armor.

The faux black market was set up through its online gaming
platform Steam, which takes a 10 percent cut of skins sales
related to "Counter-Strike; Global Offensive." Valve takes another
5 percent commission on all sales through the market.

July 7, lawsuit cites Valve employees, who had been quoted at a
2014 gaming developer's conference as saying that skins were
created as a way to further engage players to participate in a
robust trading market.

"This is not an accident. This is by design," the employee is
quoted as saying.

The class action also states that Valve is "well aware of the
skins gambling that goes on," as the company has refused to remove
the trading option on the skins. The company also has warned
players about fake gambling bots that attempt to steal skins, the
lawsuit states.

Valve has made more than $567 million in revenue from "Counter-
Strike: Global Offensive," according to the lawsuit.

The company is also well-known for developing the "Half-Life" and
"Left 4 Dead" series. It developed its online gaming platform
Steam in 2002, which has since grown to offer thousands of games.

An email seeking comment from Valve Managing Director Gabe Newell
was not immediately returned July 8.


VIRGINIA: Faces Suit Over Suspension of Driver's Licence
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Virginia tramples the rights
of poor people with outstanding court costs connected to traffic
or criminal convictions by suspending their driver's licenses
indefinitely, a group claims in Charlottesville, Va. federal class
action.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Prosecutors Widen Emissions Cheating Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karin Matussek, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that German
prosecutors widened a probe of Volkswagen AG's emissions cheating,
potentially paving the way for hundreds of millions of euros in
penalties on top of the $15.3 billion U.S. settlement.
Prosecutors invoked a procedure as part of their criminal probe of
employees that allows them to ask courts to fine the company as
well, Klaus Ziehe, a spokesman for the investigators in
Braunschweig, said by phone. Fines can only be levied if the probe
finds a top manager or board member guilty of wrongdoing linked to
the scandal.

The disclosure comes as European prosecutors and regulators have
been under fire for failing to force Volkswagen into concessions
similar to those in the U.S., in particular regarding compensation
to consumers.  While Germany doesn't allow for prosecution of
companies under criminal laws, an administrative probe is the tool
prosecutors can use to seek sanctions. Siemens AG, which faced the
same type of review during its corruption case, settled with
Munich prosecutors for 600 million euros ($662 million).

Mr. Ziehe declined to specify the date the probe was opened,
saying it was some weeks ago and that the company had been
notified "a while ago."  VW hasn't yet replied to the letter from
prosecutors, he said.

Letter Received

Volkswagen spokesman Eric Felber said the company received the
letter informing it about the process.  Sueddeutsche Zeitung
reported the step earlier.

If prosecutors can prove that Volkswagen executives violated their
duties leading up to the cheating, fines could include the profits
made from the cars affected.  Volkswagen installed the cheating
software, which turned on full pollution controls only during
official tests, in about 11 million vehicles around the world.

The potential amounts are likely to dwarf any fines the nation's
transport regulator could have levied, which the government said
it won't seek. Volkswagen is also facing a separate criminal probe
in the U.S.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Decide on Suspension of 32 Models in Korea
------------------------------------------------------------
Hyunjoo Jin, writing for Reuters, reports that South Korea's
environment ministry said on July 11 it will decide later this
month whether to revoke the certification of 32 vehicle models
made by Volkswagen after prosecutors accused the German carmaker
of fabricating documents on emissions and noise-level tests.

If the ministry decides to revoke the certification of the
affected models from Volkswagen and its Audi and Bentley units,
they will be suspended from sale in the country, the ministry said
in a statement.

Twenty-seven of the 32 models are currently offered in South
Korea, the ministry said.

The South Korean unit of Volkswagen and Audi said it would decide
on how to respond once the ministry makes a decision, including
whether to take legal action.

Volkswagen alone saw South Korean sales slump 33 percent to 12,463
vehicles in the first half of this year from a year earlier, after
the firm admitted in the United States to using software to
falsify emissions tests on some diesel cars, spurring legal action
in the United States, Germany, South Korea and elsewhere.

The ministry is due to hold a hearing on July 22, with a decision
expected after that.

South Korean prosecutors in June arrested a local Volkswagen AG
executive as part of the widening probe.

The environment ministry earlier this year ordered the suspension
of sales of Nissan Motor's Qashqai model, accusing the Japanese
automaker of manipulating its emissions control system.  In June,
Nissan's South Korean unit responded by filing a lawsuit against
the ministry.


WAL-MART STORES: Ex-Female Workers Balk at Gender Bias Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that just as Wal-Mart was about to end 15 years of litigation over
claims that it discriminated against female workers, six women on
July 14, filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit.

The six former female employees say letting Wal-Mart settle with
five named plaintiffs three years after a judge refused to certify
a class of 150,000 women would kill their chance to challenge the
ruling.

"If the named plaintiffs had litigated their cases through final
judgment, they would then have had the opportunity to appeal the
decision denying class certification," the six women wrote in a
July 14 motion to intervene.

The named plaintiffs -- Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Edith
Arana, Deborah Gunter and Christine Kwaponski -- moved to
voluntarily dismiss their suit on July 15.

"The five of them reached confidential settlements with Wal-Mart
to resolve their claims," said Jennifer Reisch, legal director for
Equal Rights Advocates who represents the named plaintiffs.

When Breyer denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in 2013, he based his decision on a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that
disbanded a class of 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees,
finding the group lacked commonality.

The named plaintiffs filed a petition to appeal Breyer's class
certification ruling in 2013, but the Ninth Circuit denied that
petition.

The six women seeking permission to intervene in the lawsuit are
Joyce Clark, Suzanne Hewey, Kristy Farias, Lucretia Johnson, Hilda
Todd and Kristin Marsh.

They say they were denied equal pay and equal opportunities for
promotion while working at Wal-Marts and Sam's Clubs in
California.

The proposed interveners seek to certify three classes of female
employees who worked at 202 Wal-Marts and 73 Sam's Clubs in three
corporate regions covering California and its neighboring states.

According to their proposed complaint in intervention, 65 to 87
percent of Wal Mart and Sam's Club stores in those three corporate
regions pay women less compared to similarly situated men.

The would-be interveners seek regional class certification,
damages and an injunction directing Wal-Mart to develop new
policies to stop discriminating against female workers.

The intervener plaintiffs' attorney, Randy Renick of Hadsell,
Stormer and Renick in Pasadena, California, did not immediately
respond to a phone call seeking comment July 15, afternoon.

Wal-Mart's attorney, Catherine Conway of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
in Los Angeles, also did not respond to a phone call seeking
comment July 15.

A hearing on the motion to intervene in the class action is
scheduled for Aug. 19 in San Francisco.


WASHINGTON: Court Paves Way for Patients to Get Hepatitis C Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph O'Sullivan, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that
Adam Rabb holds the bottle of Harvoni pills in his hands, and it
feels like a fistful of gold.

Except gold might have been easier for him to get.

Mr. Rabb, diagnosed with hepatitis C in 2010, needed a court order
to get these pills.  With one move from a federal judge, the 47-
year-old Lakewood, Pierce County, resident is one of the first of
potentially thousands of Washingtonians on Medicaid whose lives
could improve with access to the so-called blockbuster drug.

A 12-week treatment of Harvoni has a 90 percent success rate for
curing the blood-borne disease known for how it can scar the
liver.  It also carries a market price as high as $94,500 for a
course of treatment.

As new drugs came on the market, Washington joined other states in
restricting their use to only the sickest Medicaid patients. In
early 2015, the Washington Health Care Authority (HCA) approved
guidelines restricting access to hepatitis C drugs like Harvoni.
It's a move many states made out of concern over costs.

HCA approved a policy allowing Medicaid patients only with more
advanced scarring of their livers to get treatments like Harvoni.

Based on that, the agency in 2015 denied Mr. Rabb's request for
treatment.  He said he was surprised to learn he was one of the
few patients who tried to appeal the decision.

"I kept thinking about people who are older, don't have life
skills," Mr. Rabb said.  "That fired me up, really."

So Mr. Rabb became one of the lead plaintiffs in a class-action
lawsuit filed in February against HCA, which administers the
state's Medicaid program.

A federal judge in late May ruled the agency's policy was
inconsistent with state and federal Medicaid requirements that
treatments be given based on medical need.

It's a ruling that could greatly expand access to the 28,000
Washington Medicaid patients with hepatitis C.  And the ruling
could have a ripple effect.

The case marks the first time a federal judge has sided with
advocates in saying that such restrictions are inappropriate under
federal law, according to Kevin Costello, co-counsel on the class-
action lawsuit.

Mr. Rabb's case could be a precursor to another in Washington
state.  Members of the state's public-employee benefits group have
also brought a lawsuit against HCA over restrictions on hepatitis
C medications.  That case is being heard in King County Superior
Court.

HCA is complying with the judge's decision, according to agency
spokeswoman Amy Blondin.  In an email, Ms. Blondin wrote that the
state doesn't yet have a finalized estimate for what it will cost
to provide the treatments.

Without the restrictions, HCA expects to treat about 350
additional patients a month, according to Ms. Blondin, for a total
of 500 per month.

Mr. Rabb attributes years of battling the disease and what he
describes as its secondary effects as having taken a toll on his
life.  He hopes Harvoni can cure him and help restore his career
as a tattoo artist.

"There's days he can't get out of the bed, do dishes, can't use
his hands, has to use a cane to get out of his car," said
Liz Farrell, Mr. Rabb's fiancee.

"Waiting and waiting"

Ever since he was old enough to pick up a pencil, Mr. Rabb wanted
to be an artist.  Growing up in Marin County, Calif., he migrated
to the South and became a tattoo artist in places such as
Louisiana and Florida.

In Panama City, Fla., he tattooed the spring-break crowd, the
young ones who stroll in, look at a stock wall display and pick
out a design.  It was good money, if not creatively exciting.

All those years, it never occurred to Mr. Rabb that when he would
mistakenly poke himself with a tattoo needle, he could be putting
himself at risk for hepatitis C.

Mr. Rabb yearned to do more challenging work, custom tattoo art,
and he missed the big trees of the Pacific Northwest.  So he moved
out to Western Washington and found work in Tacoma and Lakewood
tattoo shops.

Mr. Rabb helped Doug Stern, a younger tattoo artist, learn how to
properly pack color into skin and fade colors from dark to light.

"He's got really clean work, when he was here he never screwed
anybody over," said Mr. Stern, 41, and co-owner of Ink Spot
Tattoos in Lakewood.

But then Mr. Rabb says he began feeling sick.  He was fatigued,
had some trouble remembering things, and just wasn't as into his
work.  The memory problems hurt -- working with a needle gun,
Mr. Rabb had to have a precise sense of what parts to ink, and
when to ink them.

Along with some back problems, "I ended up losing my career
because I couldn't keep up," he said.

Before the past couple of years, hepatitis C drugs weren't as
effective.  Considered by some as akin to low-grade chemo, they
came with side effects as serious as aggravating mental illnesses
and giving trouble with blood counts.

Because of issues like that, Mr. Rabb's doctor recommended against
his using those treatments.

"I've been waiting and waiting for new treatment to come out," he
said.

So when a doctor pre-authorized him for Harvoni -- which the
federal government approved in October 2014 -- Mr. Rabb was eager
to sign up.

But in June 2015, HCA denied authorization, according to court
documents.  Mr. Rabb's liver wasn't sufficiently scarred.

He appealed, but an administrative-law judge upheld HCA's decision
after a September hearing.

Instead of Harvoni, the "plan was to just monitor my liver," he
said.

In late May, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour granted the
preliminary injunction stopping the HCA's policy of restricting
the drugs.

Within weeks, Harvoni had been mailed to Mr. Rabb's house.

"For it to happen that fast was just bizarre," he said.

With the treatment under way, Mr. Rabb says he's starting to feel
a little better, more creative again.  Ms. Farrell says she hopes
they can get him back to work, at least part-time.

But Mr. Rabb worries about hepatitis C patients who haven't heard
about the court injunction and may not know they can now get
medicine.

"It's still not over," he said.  "There's still people that aren't
being treated."


WATER TOWER: Illegally Holds Security Deposit, "Parker" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelina Parker, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Water Tower Realty Management Company,
Case No. 2016-CH-08171 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 17, 2016), is brought
on behalf of all tenants of the apartment complex located at 1628
West Sherwin in the Rogers Park area of Chicago, Illinois between
July 1, 2014 and the present whose security deposits were not
returned, or who did not receive interest on their deposit, or who
were not informed where their security deposits were being kept.

Water Tower Realty Management Company owns and manages the
apartment complex located at 1628 West Sherwin in the Rogers Park
area of Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Berton N. Ring, Esq.
      Stuart M. Clarke, Esq.
      BERTON N. RING, P.C.
      123 West Madison Street, Suite 1500
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 781-0290
      E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com
              sclarke@bnrpc.com


WEST MORGAN-EAST: Compliance with Open Meeting Law Questioned
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Clines, writing for DecaturDaily.com, reports that The West
Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority may have broken the
state's open meeting law in June when it decided behind closed
doors for General Manger Don Sims to announce that its customers
should not drink the system's water, a media lawyer said.

The board's minutes from the June 2 meeting show that the board
went into executive session to discuss pending litigation, which
is allowed by law.

But board Chairman David Hayes said after the July 7 meeting and
board member Mark Clark said during the July 7 meeting that the
board decided in private to allow Mr. Sims to make the
announcement.

Mr. Clark said during the July 7 meeting, the first since
Mr. Sims' announcement, that Sims proposed in the June executive
session to tell customers not to drink the water.  Mr. Clark said
he was told during the session that "it was important to make a
decision to announce that the water was no good."

Mr. Hayes said after the July 7 meeting that the board went into
executive session to give Mr. Sims "permission to do what he did."
Hayes said the board followed that with a vote after the board
came out of executive session.

But the board minutes of the June meeting that were adopted on
July 7 by the board showed that immediately after the executive
session the board voted to declare an emergency related to a
federal health advisory and authorize Mr. Sims to secure a $4
million line of credit to install a temporary filtration system to
rid the water of two chemicals.

Sims made the announcement the afternoon of June 2 at a news
conference at the Doubletree by Hilton in Decatur.  Mr. Sims said
at the news conference that the board had given him permission
that morning to make the announcement.

Dennis Bailey, an attorney for the Alabama Press Association, said
the board's action in June "certainly raises red flags" regarding
the open meeting law.

"If they discussed any of those three things in executive session,
in my opinion, that would be a violation of the meeting act," Mr.
Bailey said on July 8of the declaration of emergency, the
authorization of a line of credit and the announcement.  "None of
those things are subject to the open meeting law."

Mr. Bailey said the board members' apparent concession that they
discussed those issues in secret would be evidence he would
present if trying the case in court.

Cary McWhorter, who represents the authority along with her
father, Robert McWhorter, was asked after the July 7 meeting about
Messrs. Clark's and Hayes' comments about what the board did in
the June executive session.

"I'm not going to comment on anything that took place in executive
session," she said.

In response to an email outlining Mr. Bailey's position,
Cary McWhorter responded on July 8 she was on vacation but would
forward the email to others to see about a response.

Decatur lawyer Carl Cole, who represents the authority in pending
litigation related to the safety of the drinking water, responded
on July 8 with an email that said Mr. Bailey's "conclusion is
based on a flawed understanding of what happened during the
session."

Mr. Sims did not respond to texts on July 8.

Mr. Bailey said a person can file a civil lawsuit to void the
actions of a public body that violates the open meeting law.

The West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority board has
met in executive session to ostensibly discuss litigation five
times since October, including a 50-minute closed-door session on
July 7.

The July 7 executive session was called to discuss "ongoing and
pending legal matters," Cary McWhorter said.  After the session,
she announced that others in the meeting included representatives
from two of the authority's insurance carriers, an attorney with
one of the carriers, and Cole, who is representing the authority
in a lawsuit against 3M and other parties in connection with
contaminants in the water.

The board voted in open session to allow its attorneys to respond
to a lawsuit filed against the authority in Lawrence County.

The lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed June 4 in
Lawrence County Circuit Court by Richard Waits, a customer of the
West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority, and Moranda
Hollis, a customer of the West Lawrence Water Authority, which
buys its water from West Morgan-East Lawrence.

Waits and Hollis, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of customers of
both water systems, claim the two water systems were negligent and
breached their contract to provide customers safe drinking water,
and failed to warn or take remedial measures in a timely manner
after learning of unacceptable levels of contaminants in the
water.

The lawsuit, filed by Moulton attorneys Thomas Denham and Christy
Graham, asks for an unspecified amount of money in damages along
with attorneys' fees, interest and costs.  It also asks for a
court order requiring the two water systems to take steps to
provide safe drinking water to customers.

Until recently, there was some uncertainty regarding the efficacy
of the gate-keeping function provided by the statutory screening.


YURIY PRAKHIN: Faces "Grinberg" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Grinberg, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. Law Office of Yuriy Prakhin, P.C.
and Yuriy Prakhin, Case No. 1:16-cv-03514 (E.D.N.Y., June 24,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Law Office of Yuriy Prakhin, P.C. owns and operates a law firm
located at 1883 86th St, Brooklyn, NY 11214.

Michael Grinberg is a pro se plaintiff.


* Recent Securities Class Action Rulings Favorable for Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Berman, Esq., and Lara Jackson, Esq., of Cassels Brock &
Blackwell LLP, in an article for The Lawyers Weekly, report that
recent developments in securities class actions in Canada suggest
a positive sea change for public companies, officers and directors
included, in defending against costly claims for secondary market
misrepresentation.  The combination of a confirmed rigorous
screening test at the preliminary leave stage and the deployment
of proactive defense strategies have recently proved fatal to
proposed securities class actions.

Until recently, there was some uncertainty regarding the efficacy
of the gate-keeping function provided by the statutory screening
mechanism, which requires a plaintiff seeking to commence a
statutory secondary market liability action to first prove that:
(1) the claim is being brought in good faith, and (2) there is a
reasonable possibility that the plaintiff will succeed at trial.

In two key decisions in 2015, Theratechnologies Inc. v. 121851
Canada Inc. [2015] SCC 18 and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
v. Green [2015] SCC 60, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously
confirmed that the "reasonable possibility" requirement of the
leave test is more than just a procedural formality.  It added
courts "must undertake a reasoned consideration of the evidence to
ensure that the action has some merit." (Note the first branch of
the test remains plaintiff-friendly.) The Supreme Court's
affirmation of a meaningful leave test is a positive development
for public companies and encourages a robust response to leave
motions in appropriate cases.  Subsequent recent securities class
actions have successfully utilized such strategies.

A judge hearing a leave motion will make significant factual
determinations where the record supports it.  In Coffin v.
Atlantic Power Corp. [2015] ONSC 3686, the plaintiffs sought leave
to proceed with a secondary market class action, which alleged
that Atlantic Power and its former CEO and CFO had previously
misrepresented the company's ability to maintain the existing
dividend level.  The defendants responded with a massive
evidentiary record, including competing expert reports and
non-public (court-sealed) internal and corporate narrative
evidence.  Following a thorough review of the evidence, the court
denied leave, concluding that there were no misrepresentations by
assertion or omission, or material changes that were not
disclosed, and that there was no reasonable possibility that the
plaintiffs could show otherwise.

Expert evidence, although costly, can also be crucial in defending
leave motions.  In Mask v. Silvercorp Metals Inc. [2015] ONSC
5348, the plaintiffs filed an expert opinion that concluded there
was misrepresentation on comparing two reports released by
Silvercorp, which provided seemingly different mineral resource
and reserve estimates.  In response, Silvercorp filed an affidavit
from an expert explaining that different reporting parameters had
been applied to the two reports and, therefore, there were no
actual discrepancies between the reports.  The court relied on the
defendant's expert report in denying the motion for leave, finding
that the plaintiffs had failed to adduce sufficient evidence of a
misrepresentation and therefore failed to "clear the leave
hurdle."

In addition to attacking the merits of the plaintiff's claim,
defendants may also rely on statutory defenses to defeat the claim
at the leave stage.  In Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources Ltd. [2015]
ONSC 5948, the company had issued a press release announcing that
previous financial information was no longer accurate and that the
company was examining internal controls over financial reporting
to identify "material weaknesses." Despite this clear evidence of
a misrepresentation, the individual directors and officers
successfully defeated the leave motion against them by relying on
the statutory "reasonable investigation" defense, which provides
that a person or company is not liable for a misrepresentation if
(1) it conducted a reasonable investigation before the document
was released, and (2) it had no reasonable grounds to believe at
the time of the document's release, that the document contained
the misrepresentation.  The court found that in the context of a
reasonable investigation defense, a motion for leave will be
granted "if there is a reasonable possibility that the defendants
will not be able to establish one or both branches of the
reasonable investigation defense."  Although the court
characterized this as a "relatively high hurdle" for the
defendants, the defendants met this burden by proving that there
was nothing more they could have done to ensure the legitimacy and
accuracy of the financial representations at the time.  As a
result, leave was only granted against the issuer defendant.

The Supreme Court's affirmation of the higher standard to be
applied on leave motions, together with recent lower court
decisions, indicate that courts are willing to play a more
rigorous gate-keeper role in dismissing unmeritorious claims at an
early stage with the appropriate evidentiary record.  As a result,
in appropriate cases, we expect to see extensive efforts by all
parties on leave motions, with corresponding voluminous materials
and significant upfront costs.

                            *********

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  * * *