CAR_Public/160726.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 26, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 148




                            Headlines


3801 BROADWAY: Piedrahita Seeks Review of E.D. New York Ruling
AFRICAN RAINBOW: Gold Mine Silicosis Class Action Ongoing
ALIBABA GROUP: Christine Asia Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
ARAB BANK: Default Interest Charges Unconscionable, Court Rules
ASSET RECOVERY: Trial in "Datta" Case to Begin Aug. 15

BITCOIN SAVINGS: Shavers Get 18-Month Sentence Over Fraud
BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Action Over Incorrect Rebate Calculation
C.R. ENGLAND: "Gradie" Suit Moved to Utah Dist. Ct.
CATERPILLAR INC: Settles Class Action Over Alleged Engine Defects
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Cogdill" Suit in N.D. Tex.

CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: CEOG Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. Okla.
CHICAGO, IL: Court Bars Victor Crown Over Fraudulent Tax Returns
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: N L Appeals Ruling From C.D. Cal. to 9th Cir.
COLORADO: Corrections Dep't Settles Outdoor Exercise Class Action
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Former Student Files Class Action Over Loans

DALLAS CENTRAL: Sued in Tex. Over Unfair Property Value Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Sued in Tex. Over Unfair Property Value Appraisal
DENSO CORP: Settles Automobile Dealership Antitrust Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Judge Cuts Fees of Employees' Attorneys to $1-Mil.
DONNA KARAN: 2nd Cir. Returns Actions to S.D. New York

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Sued Over False Ad for Banana Boat Sunscreen
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Zolandz" Suit
FENTON & MCGARVEY: Tetik Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
FIAT CHRYSLER: Court Hears Arguments in Jeep Cherokee Case Appeal
FORD MOTOR: Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling in "MacDonald" Suit

FOSTER FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Humane Certification Label
FULL TILT: Quiet Settlement Reached in Poker Class Action
GEM FINANCIAL: Conditional Cert. Bid in "Dalton" Granted in Part
GENERAL MOTORS: Claims to Spike Following Ignition Switch Ruling
GOGO INC: "Salameno" Suit Sent to Arbitration

HENDRICK HONDA: Dealership Closing Fee Litigation Pending
HEWLETT PACKARD: Tech Support Workers Lose Class Action Bid
HOG & ROCKS: Faces "Greenblatt" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Appeal Filed in Suit Over ADA Violation
ILLINOIS: Department of Labor Sued Over Wage Claim Dismissal

INDIANA: To Hire More Child Abuse Caseworkers After Deaths Spike
INTELLICURE INC: Class Certification Hearing Held in Holt Suit
JEAN COUTU: Intends to Contest Pharmacist-Owners' Class Action
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Zuniga Seeks Certification of 2 FDCPA Classes
JOHN MORRELL: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Limon" Suit

JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LA UNIFIED: Loses Bid to Dismiss Fired Teachers' Suit
LEVY & WHITE: FCDPA Class Action Litigation Pending
MA'DEAR HOME: Sued in Ill. Cir. Ct. Over Failure to Pay Wages
MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Reaches Settlement with MH17 Victims' Families

MASTERCARD: Sainsbury's Gets Refund Following Tribunal Ruling
MASTERS CHAMPIONS: FICA Mulls Class Action Over Unpaid Event Dues
MAYER BROWN: Retirement System Appeals Dismissal of Suit
MDL 1917: Settlement Deals With IPPs Has Final Okay
MEADOWS CONSTRUCTION: "Ribeiro" Suit Seeks Treble Damages

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Orozco" Suit in N.D. Tex.
MIDWEST POULTRY: Direct Purchasers' Settlement Has Final Okay
MILLE LACS, MN: Settles Data Snooping Class Action for $1MM
MISSOURI: Court to Grant Settlement Deal in "Orden" Suit
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Approves $75MM Concussion Settlement

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Wash. High Court Weighs in on "Jordan" Case
NEW YORK: Group Gets Unfavorable Ruling in Library Sale Case
NIANTIC INC: Senator Raises Pokemon Go User Data Privacy Issues
NIANTIC LABS: Pokemon Go-Related Injuries May Spur Class Action
NIANTIC LABS: Terms of Service Waives Legal Rights to Sue

NYK: Pleads Guilty to Criminal Cartel Conduct
PALOS VERDES, CA: To Dismantle Lunada Bay Boys' Stone Fort
PARIS BAGUETTE: 2nd Cir. Returns Actions to S.D. New York
PEARLS: Australian Gov't Blocks Sale of Sheraton Mirage Resort
PEPE'S REST: "Camas" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under Labor Law

PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Faces "Cahill" Suit in S.D. Fla.
PETROBRAS: Sept. 19 Trial Set in Investors' Fraud Class Action
PHARMAVITE LLC: Bradach Files Appeal Ruling From C.D. California
PLS DIABETIC: Podiatry In Motion Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
PNC BANK: Alleged Ponzi Victims File $30MM Class Action

POMONA UNIFIED: Disabled Students File Class Action
PRESSLER AND PRESSLER: Faces "Cervini" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RADIANT SERVICES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Labor Code
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Disputes Well Contamination Claims
SAN JOSE, CA: Donald Trump's Supporters Sue Over Rally Violence

SCOTTRADE INC: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Settlement in "Lum" Case Has Final Okay
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: To Incur US$130K Legal Costs in "Lum" Suit
SOUTHERN VANGUARD: Esparza Sues Over Insurance Coverage Dispute
SOUTHERN VANGUARD: Gomez Sues Over Insurance Coverage Adjustment

SPRINT SPECTRUM: Bid to Dismiss "Emilio" Suit Denied
STAFFING NETWORK: Sued Over Procurement of Consumer Reports
STANDAFER & SONS: "Wood" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SWC GROUP: Faces "Fowlkes" Suit in E.D. Tex.
SWH MIMI'S: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. for Discrimination

TIMBERCORP: Liquidators to Challenge Class Action Ruling
TOM'S FAMILY: "Cardenas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
TRI-VALLEY CORP: Court Dismisses Groblebe's 3rd Amended Suit
TRUMP ENTREPRENEUR: Class Action Moves Forward in New York
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Inclined to Deny Fraud Case Dismissal Bid

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arguments Heard in Price-Fixing Sanctions Case
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Defers Ruling on Summary Judgment Bid
UNITED PARCEL: Flores Appeals Order in Pricey Air Service Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Arguments in Class Action v. NSA
UNUM GROUP: Court Dismissing "Don" Action

VECTOR MARKETING: "Wood" Case Settlement Wins Preliminary OK
VEROS CREDIT: Response to "Cosper" Suit Due Aug. 8
WAL-MART STORES: Court Upholds Shareholder Case Dismissal
WALDMAN & KAPLAN: "O'Brien" Suit Defeats Dismissal
WASHINGTON: Court Allows Loan Borrowers' Class Action to Proceed

WCA WASTE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Fees
WESTAR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Great Plains Deal

* Class Action New Concept to SA, Silicosis Suit Ongoing
* Credit Union Opposes CFPB Arbitration Proposal
* Data Processors Face Class Action Risk in United Kingdom
* Recent Supreme Court Class Action Rulings Favor Plaintiffs' Bar
* Speier Proposes to Criminalize "Revenge Porn" Amid Class Action


                            *********


3801 BROADWAY: Piedrahita Seeks Review of E.D. New York Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants 3801 Broadway Restaurant Corp., Milton Jara and Ruth
Jara filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Piedrahita v. 3801 Broadway Restaurant Corp., Case No. 14-cv-226,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Piedrahita v. 3801 Broadway
Restaurant Corp., Case No. 16-2520, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Mayra Piedrahita and Isabel Alvarez are
represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants 3801 Broadway Restaurant Corp., DBA Las
Margaritas, Ruth Jara and Milton Jara are represented by:

          John Leo Russo, Esq.
          J. L. RUSSO, P.C.
          31-19 Newtown Avenue
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 777-1277
          E-mail: JLRussoPC@gmail.com


AFRICAN RAINBOW: Gold Mine Silicosis Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Pete Lewis, writing for GroundUp, reports that the chief
executives of the gold mines who are appealing against the
historic silicosis judgment are extremely rich and globally
powerful men, and what they say and do will have a major impact on
who bears the cost of this disease.

On July 15, the six companies, which are members of the
Occupational Lung Disease Working Group, announced that each had
applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against
the silicosis judgment in the South Gauteng High Court on May 13.
The companies are African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American South
Africa, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Harmony and Sibanye Gold.

The issue affects between 250,000 and 500,000 former gold
mineworkers suffering from work-related TB and/or silicosis from
all over Southern Africa, and their dependents if they died or die
between 2012 and the date of settlement.

On June 25, 2016, the High Court allowed the mining companies
leave to appeal against the court's decision to allow dependents
of the mineworkers to benefit from any settlement (the
"inheritance ruling"), but not against the class action
certification itself.  The six mines duly lodged the permitted
appeal.  In the past few days, they have filed leave to appeal the
entire certification to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The class action offers mineworkers hope for two reasons.  First,
any out-of-court settlement must be approved by the court "in the
interests of justice".  This means that anything the industry
offers the mineworkers must be proportionate to the true financial
losses that the sick, and getting sicker, mineworkers have
sustained, in many cases over decades, due to the burden of their
disease.  Such losses are far and away greater than any payouts
they may have received, or are entitled to, from the official
compensation system under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and
Works Act, (ODIMWA), because they include income lost through
their inability to work due to their disease.

Furthermore, the calculation of these damages must take into
account the individual circumstances of every claimant, including
how much he has already received through ODIMWA (usually nothing),
the severity of the disease, uninsured medical costs he has had to
pay, and his calculated loss of income over years, and in some
cases, over one or even two decades.

Second, if the class action goes ahead, the mines must launch and
pay for a huge information campaign at the mines, and in specified
newspapers and radio across the subcontinent, to inform both
former and current sick mineworkers that the class action exists,
and that they are included in it unless they opt out.  Not a
single one will opt out.

This would greatly increase public pressure on the gold industry
to settle fairly, in and beyond South Africa.

If the pronouncements of the mines' working group and the track
record of the gold industry are any indication, the industry's
appeal process on the inheritance ruling will go all the way to
the Constitutional Court if necessary.  Anglogold Ashanti
previously took the matter of the mineworkers' right to sue for
civil damages all the way to the Concourt -- and lost.

The current round of appeals removes the immediate threat and cost
to the industry of the public information campaign which the court
ordered on May 13.  The threat of huge time lags of litigation
might also further tempt the miners into a negotiated settlement
without judicial oversight, which the mines would prefer.

If the mining companies do find themselves defending the class
action in court on its merits, they will argue that they took all
legally required steps to prevent silicosis and/or TB
(ventilation, wetting down, training, blasting intervals, dust
control and monitoring underground etc), and that they treated TB
when it arose (in the mine hospitals).  Silicosis is untreatable.

They will argue, as they have in the past, that they never sent
workers home with silicosis and/or TB without informing them of
their condition and its cause and that they were entitled to
compensation.  They will deny failing to offer workers assistance
in getting compensation, and they will lay the blame on poor
public health services in the areas the mineworkers came from.
They will also cite administrative problems in the state
compensation system and say they didn't know about the epidemic of
compensable respiratory disease amongst African gold mineworkers
until fairly recently.

In reply, lawyers for the mineworkers will argue that the industry
took no steps to find out about the vast burden of disease.  They
will point out that independent scientific research was ignored,
belittled, or denied.  They will offer affidavits from former
mineworkers telling how dust was not controlled underground,
ventilation didn't work, blasting intervals were not observed,
personal protective equipment and training on dust and disease
prevention were not given, hostels and work clothing were full of
silica dust, making the many regulations in the century-old Mines
and Works Act not worth the reams of paper they were written on.
They will argue that dust monitoring was only done to maintain the
appearance of compliance rather than for any serious disease
prevention program.

Every single head of argument put forward by the industry to deny
its liability for the epidemic of silicosis and/or TB will be
challenged if the merits of the class action case are finally
heard in court, until something like the truth will emerge, and
appropriate damages awarded.  In identical cases in the past, with
much smaller numbers of claimants, the mining industry has been
content to settle out of court after years of litigation with no
additional conditions attached.  In Blom vs Anglo American, the
company even conceded the "inheritance principle" that it is now
appealing in the class action case.

In the current "big bang "class action case, however, with its
enormous financial implications, the mines are going one giant
step further.  They want to settle not just out of court, but
beyond judicial oversight.  The mines' appeal strategy is designed
to block the legal remedy that mineworkers have pursued for years,
in favor of "negotiated stakeholder agreements".

And in the meantime, to set up a whole new compensation system
which will lock in mineworkers and other workers for years to
come.


ALIBABA GROUP: Christine Asia Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Abel Amoros, Christine Asia Co. Ltd., Arthur Gabriel,
Raymond Lee, and Tai William, and Movant Gang Liu filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Christine Asia Co. Ltd.
v. Ma, Case No. 15-md-2631, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Christine Asia Co. Ltd. v. Ma,
Case No. 16-2519, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 13,
2016, District Judge Colleen McMahon issued an amended Memorandum
Decision and Order on June 27, 2016, granting, in full, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Christine Asia Co. Ltd. et
al. v. Ma, et al., Case No. 1:15-md-02631 (S.D.N.Y.).

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

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

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

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

"In July 2015, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim.  Briefing on the motion
was complete on September 2015."

The other Plaintiffs are Manishkumar Khunt, James Ziolkowski,
Claire Rand, Devorah Klein, Christine Ziolkowski, Ming Huang,
Placidius O'Silva and Myrtle Tan Chao.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants Christine Asia Co. Ltd., Tai William,
Abel Amoros, Arthur Gabriel and Raymond Lee, and Movant Gang Liu
are represented by:

          Laurence Mathew Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Zhaoxi
Lu, Maggie Wei Wu and Alibaba Group Holding Limited are
represented by:

          James Kreissman, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251-5080
          Facsimile: (650) 251-5002
          E-mail: jkreissman@stblaw.com

               - and -

          George S. Wang, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2228
          Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
          E-mail: gwang@stblaw.com


ARAB BANK: Default Interest Charges Unconscionable, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Banking Day reports that the question of when bank default charges
become unreasonable penalties, which is a central issue in the
ongoing bank fees class action, was canvassed in a recent case
before the District Court of News South Wales involving Arab Bank
and a property developer.

The court ruled in Sayde Developments Pty Ltd v Arab Bank
Australia Ltd that default interest charged on the total
outstanding principal when payments were overdue was an excessive
penalty and was refundable.


ASSET RECOVERY: Trial in "Datta" Case to Begin Aug. 15
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEENA ARTHUR DATTA, Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-00188-LHK (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Lucy H. Koh extended the trial to August 15, 2016,
from its initial schedule on August 1, 2016. The pretrial
conference, set for July 14, is continued to July 28.

The court ordered that both pretrial conference and trial will
proceed whether or not parties file their notice of settlement
scheduled on July 1, 2016 and motion for preliminary approval due
on July 14.

A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/Ywo9Jxfrom Leagle.com.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Ian
Dalby -- ddalby@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP &
Justin Michael Penn -- jpenn@hinsahwlaw.com -- Hinshaw and
Culbertson LLP.



BITCOIN SAVINGS: Shavers Get 18-Month Sentence Over Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Texas man who carried out what authorities said was the first
federal bitcoin securities fraud to be prosecuted was sentenced on
July 21 to 18 months in prison.

Trendon Shavers, 33, was sentenced in Manhattan federal court by
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who said Shavers committed a serious crime
but had earned leniency through the honest work he's done since
his 2014 arrest.  Federal sentencing guidelines had called for a
prison term of nearly three years.

The judge also ordered $1.2 million, the amount lost by 48
investors, to be forfeited and an equal amount of restitution.

He said Shavers, of Prosper, Texas, carried out a "classic Ponzi
scheme" after offering potential investors high interest rates to
turn over bitcoins, a virtual currency that operates outside
government regulation.  Authorities say that at the peak of the
scheme Shavers possessed about 7 percent of all bitcoins in public
circulation.

Mr. Shavers told the judge he "royally messed up."

"I don't think this is something I'll ever fully be able to get
over, but I'm going to try to make things right," Mr. Shavers
said.

Prosecutors said Shavers caused about half of 100 investors to
lose all or part of their bitcoin investments from September 2011
to September 2012.  According to court documents, Shavers used
about $220,000 in bitcoins and money from investors to cover his
rent, car payments, groceries and other family expenses.

Assistant federal defender Sabrina Shroff had urged the judge to
sentence Shavers to probation so that he could continue his work
for a Texas family. She said his crime arose as he tried to rescue
his failing business.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a release that Shavers
promised investors "spectacular returns and personal guarantees,
when all he was really doing was paying back old investors with
new investors' bitcoins."

"Applying a modern spin to an age-old fraud, Trendon Shavers used
a bitcoin business to run a classic Ponzi scheme," he said.

Prosecutors said Mr. Shavers offered investors up to 7 percent
weekly to invest in his business, Bitcoin Savings and Trust, which
offered and sold bitcoin-based investments through the internet.

Mr. Shavers pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud in
September.


BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Action Over Incorrect Rebate Calculation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Herman, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that members
who have health coverage through Blue Shield of California are
suing the insurer, alleging the company owes $35 million in
additional rebates because it included faulty payments within its
medical-loss ratio a few years ago.

Two Blue Shield members, Becky Ebenkamp and Rebecca Morris, filed
the class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 446,000 other
people who bought an individual Blue Shield plan in 2014.

One of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs is Jay Angoff, a
former Missouri insurance commissioner and former director of the
CMS' Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.
While at CCIIO, one of Mr. Angoff's primary duties was enforcing
the Affordable Care Act's medical-loss ratio rule, which requires
insurance companies selling in the individual market to spend at
least 80% of collected premiums on medical care or "quality
improvement activities."

Calls to Mr. Angoff's current law practice, Mehri & Skalet, and
the other firm involved with the lawsuit, Hadsell Stormer &
Renick, were not returned on July 14.

In a statement, Blue Shield of California confirmed it received
the lawsuit and said, "We believe that the allegations are
misinformed and incorrect, and that we are in compliance with all
the rules regarding medical-loss ratios."

The ACA instituted the MLRs as a way to keep costs down and ensure
health insurers were spending most of their revenue on patient
care instead of profits, marketing and executive compensation.
Insurers that don't meet the ratio's thresholds are required by
law to pay back the difference to their members in the form of
rebates.

In the first three years of the ACA, insurers paid out more than
$1.9 billion in rebates to consumers for not hitting the MLR, a
provision that has been unpopular among insurers.

In 2014, Blue Shield admitted it incorrectly paid about $44.6
million in medical claims, the lawsuit reads.  Plaintiffs allege
the insurer still included that erroneous amount within its MLR
calculations even though it should've been excluded -- essentially
classifying administrative mistakes as medical spending.  That
resulted in Blue Shield shortchanging consumer rebates by about
$35 million, after adjusting the calculations, according to the
lawsuit.

"It seems to me that what Blue Shield has done absolutely violates
the letter and the intent of the MLR provision," said Michael
Johnson, Blue Shield's former director of public policy. Johnson
is unaffiliated with the lawsuit, but he has tracked Blue Shield's
rate filings and alerted lawyers to look into the issue. He left
Blue Shield in 2015 and has openly criticized the not-for-profit
insurer for acting too much like its investor-owned peers.

Blue Shield has since filed a lawsuit against Mr. Johnson,
alleging he disclosed confidential information, and has dismissed
his protests.

Although Blue Shield said the MLR lawsuit was "misinformed,"
Mr. Johnson believes it has strong merits based on the fact a
former CMS official who managed the oversight of premium ratios
has embraced the case's arguments.

"They wouldn't have taken this case if they didn't think there was
a good prospect of recovery for consumers," Mr. Johnson said.


C.R. ENGLAND: "Gradie" Suit Moved to Utah Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
William H. Gradie, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. C.R. England, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-03507, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for District of Utah (Central). The Utah District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00768-DN to the proceeding.
The assigned Judge is Hon. David Nuffer.

C.R. England is an American family-owned trucking company founded
in 1920. The company provides temperature-controlled
transportation services throughout North America and Mexico.


CATERPILLAR INC: Settles Class Action Over Alleged Engine Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging
Caterpillar Inc. engines equipped with exhaust emission control
systems failed to work reliably, costing owners thousands.

Judge Jerome Simandle of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, who is overseeing the case, recently signed an
order preliminarily approving a settlement worth $60 million.

The plaintiffs argued the engines with the CAT Regeneration
System, or CRS, failed, causing the company's ACERT C13 and C15
on-highway diesel engines to lose horsepower and shut down,
requiring Caterpillar-authorized dealer technicians to repair the
engines.  The plaintiffs alleged they could not effectively do so.

The ACERT engines were introduced as Caterpillar's alternative to
exhaust-gas recirculation, or EGR, to meet 2004 emissions
standards.

The settlement offers payments to current and former owners and
lessees of vehicles with EPA 2007 Compliant Caterpillar On Highway
C13 and C15 engines manufactured in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Specifically, class members who experienced no CRS-related repairs
are eligible to receive, but not guaranteed, $500 for each subject
engine.

Class members who experienced one to five qualified CRS-related
repairs are eligible to receive, but not guaranteed, $5,000 per
subject engine.

Those class members who experienced six or more qualified CRS-
related repairs are eligible to receive, but not guaranteed,
$10,000 per subject engine.

Each eligible class member also has the option -- instead of
seeking a payment as set forth above -- to seek to claim losses up
to a maximum of $15,000, experienced as a consequence of qualified
CRS-related repairs.  These losses can include but will not be
limited to towing charges, rental charges and hotel charges.
Proofs can include receipts, invoices, bills, etc.

All class members must file a claim in order to receive a payment.

Caterpillar has said the settlement is in the "best interest" of
all parties and in the public interest.

"Because the settlement eliminates many of the individualized
issues and manageability challenges that a trial of class claims
would entail, Caterpillar does not oppose certification of the
settlement class," the company wrote in a recent brief.

"Caterpillar would like to afford closure and compensation to its
loyal customers who submit approved claims."

Still, the company denies the allegations in the lawsuit, saying
it designed the engines at issue to meet the "stringent" soot and
NOX emission-control regulations for heavy duty diesel engines.

"After extensive research Caterpillar settled on a technology
called the Caterpillar Regeneration System ('CRS'), which utilized
an aftertreatment regeneration device ('ARD') to vaporize soot
captured in the Diesel Particulate Filter ('DPF') from the exhaust
gas," the company wrote in its brief. "Caterpillar's goal was to
produce an emission control system that would meet the EPA
emission standards and at the same time protect the complex engine
parts from contamination."

The company continued, "Caterpillar's engines are well designed
and it honored its warranty commitments to plaintiffs and to the
putative class when issues arose.  The EPA thoroughly reviewed the
engineering of the engines and certified the design of the
engines' emissions systems.  Caterpillar remains convinced of its
position on the merits."

But, simply put, further litigation would be too risky and costly
for both sides, Caterpillar said.

"Caterpillar thus endorses the settlement class as a realistic
resolution of this class action," its brief states.

According to the settlement information website, class counsel
plans to request up to nearly 34 percent of the value of the
settlement fund for attorneys' fees plus reimbursement of
reasonable expenses, or $20.4 million.

However, the court will decide the amount of fees and expenses to
award.

Class counsel includes attorneys with New Jersey law firms
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP and Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Illinois firm Quantum Legal LLC and
prominent plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Aug. 6 is the deadline to exclude from the settlement; Aug. 21 is
the deadline to object to the settlement.  The fairness hearing is
set for 10:00 a.m. Sept. 20.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Cogdill" Suit in N.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC.
The case is captioned Carl Cogdill, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00655-Y (N.D. Tex.,
July 8, 2016). The assigned Senior Judge is Hon. Terry R Means.

Cavalry Portfolio is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walt D Roper, Esq.
          THE ROPER FIRM PC
          3001 Knox Street, Suite 405
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (214) 420 4520
          Facsimile: (214) 856 8480
          E-mail: walt@roperfirm.com


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: CEOG Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CEOG LLC, individually and for all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Chesapeake Operating LLC, Defendant, Case No. CJ-14-
00112, was removed from the District Court of Caddo County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma
City). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-
00776-HE. The assigned Judge is Hon. Joe Heaton.

Chesapeake Operating engages in exploration and drilling of
natural gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darrell W Downs, Esq.
          Mark H Ramsey, Esq.
          Stratton Taylor, Esq.
          TAYLOR BURRAGE FOSTER
          MALLETT DOWNS RAMSEY & RUSSELL
          P O Box 309
          Claremore, OK 74018-0309
          Telephone: (918) 343 4100
          Facsimile: (918) 343 4900
          E-mail: ddowns@soonerlaw.com
                  mramsey@soonerlaw.com
                  staylor@soonerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kandi J Pate, Esq.
          Mark A Wolfe, Esq.
          PATE & WOLFE
          50 Penn Place
          1900 NW Expressway, Suite 1300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 858 0012
          Facsimile: (405) 858 0013
          E-mail: pate_wolfe@sbcglobal.net
                  Mark19@cox.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark D Christiansen, Esq.
          Michael F Smith, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT-OKC
          211 N Robinson Ave, 10th Fl
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 552 2235
          Facsimile: (405) 228 7435
          E-mail: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com
                  michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com

               - and -

          Paul D Trimble, Esq.
          GUNGOLL JACKSON BOX
          & DEVOLL-OKC
          101 Park Avenue, Suite 1400
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 272 4710
          Facsimile: (405) 272 5141
          E-mail: trimble@gungolljackson.com


CHICAGO, IL: Court Bars Victor Crown Over Fraudulent Tax Returns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Stimpson, writing for Accounting Today, reports that a
federal court has barred preparer Victor M. Crown from preparing
returns for others.

According to a civil complaint the U.S. filed in 2014, Mr. Crown
prepared returns that falsely claimed that recipients of
discrimination awards related to a class-action lawsuit could
claim large deductions on their federal returns and that falsely
inflated the amount of wages that City of Chicago employees
claimed were withheld from their paychecks.

Mr. Crown promoted two false and fraudulent schemes through which
he claimed that his clients could obtain significant federal
refunds, the complaint alleged.  In the first scheme, he allegedly
falsely inflated the amount of income tax withheld from his
clients' paychecks because the City of Chicago purportedly
calculated an incorrect withholding amount.

The second alleged scheme is founded on the 1969 class-action
lawsuit Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County et al.,
a discrimination case against the City of Chicago that alleged
that the city improperly used political patronage when hiring and
promoting public officials.  As part of an agreed settlement
order, the city set up a $12 million fund to compensate claimants
for violations of the federal district court's orders.  Claims
were submitted to the court-appointed monitor, who was responsible
for evaluating the claims and, if justified, assigning a monetary
award amount.

According to the complaint against Mr. Crown, he asserted that his
clients who were Shakman award recipients were entitled to claim
net operating loss deductions for the difference between their
claim and the amount they actually received in their award.

In explaining its reasons for enjoining Mr. Crown, the court noted
that the scope of Mr. Crown's misconduct involved "at least 2,900
fraudulent tax returns," as well as his "failure to accept
responsibility and cease his operations."

The court's injunction order forbids Mr. Crown from preparing
returns for others and from making false statements about securing
any tax benefit by virtue of receiving or not receiving an award
in the Shakman litigation.  It also requires Mr. Crown to give the
federal government a list of all his prep clients since 2010.


CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: N L Appeals Ruling From C.D. Cal. to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
N L, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad litem and all others
similarly situated Guardian Ad Litem Jacqueline Arce, filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled N L v. Childrens
Hospital Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07200-AB-FFM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as N L v. Childrens Hospital Los
Angeles, et al., Case No. 16-56019, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant N L is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Dennis B. Atchley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONNIE R. COX
          402 N. Nevada Street
          Oceanside, CA 92054
          Telephone: (760) 400-0263
          E-mail: dbalaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Stephen Darden Daner, Esq.
          Shawn Allen McMillan, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN, A.P.C.
          4955 Via Lapiz
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 646-0069
          Facsimile: (206) 600-4582
          E-mail: steve.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com
                  attyshawn@netscape.net

Defendants-Appellees Childrens Hospital Los Angeles and Childrens
Hospital Los Angeles Medical Group are represented by:

          David P. Pruett, Esq.
          CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN, MCKENNA & PEABODY
          P.O. Box 22636
          111 W. Ocean Blvd.
          Long Beach, CA 90801-5636
          Telephone: (562) 432-5855
          Facsimile: (562) 432-8785
          E-mail: dppruett@cktfmlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Medical Group is
represented by:

          Robert L. McKenna, III, Esq.
          CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN, MCKENNA & PEABODY
          P.O. Box 22636
          111 W. Ocean Blvd.
          Long Beach, CA 90801-5636
          Telephone: (562) 432-5855
          Facsimile: (562) 432-8785
          E-mail: rlmckenna@cktfmlaw.com


COLORADO: Corrections Dep't Settles Outdoor Exercise Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When you open a window in your home, do you consider yourself
outside? Probably not.  That was the argument that inmates at
Colorado State Penitentiary made in a class-action lawsuit against
the Colorado Department of Corrections, according to KUNC's Kareem
Maddox.  The case has been settled and the Department of
Corrections will build three new recreation yards at the Canon
City prison by the end of 2016.

The suit stemmed the case of inmate Troy Anderson, who was in long
term administrative segregation at CSP.  Colorado's position was
that the provided exercise room, which had an open barred window,
constituted outdoor exercise access.  The 2012 decision disagreed,
saying that denying Anderson outdoor exercise violated the Eight
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"So we thought, now they're finally going to build exercise yards
at the Colorado State Penitentiary . . . They did not," said
Amy Robertson, the co-executive director of the Civil Rights
Education and Enforcement Center.  "They took Mr. Anderson and
moved him to Sterling Correctional Facility."

Moving Ms. Anderson though didn't solve the issue of outdoor
exercise for the rest of the inmates at the state's maximum
security prison.  As a result, the Civil Rights Education and
Enforcement Center along with the Civil Rights Clinic at the
University of Denver Law School filed the suit.

Interview Highlights with Amy Robertson

Why They Brought A Class-Action Suit

" . . . working with the Civil Rights Clinic at DU, we started
investigating the possibility of a class action.  And the great
thing about a class action in this context is it would have the
ability to take that [2012] decision the court reached, and we
were fairly confident that a second court would reach the same
conclusion.  That conclusion would apply to the entire class of
inmates at CSP so there would be no choice but to build yards.  To
actually give people outdoor exercise."

On The Role of University of Denver Law Students

"The students did an amazing job investigating these claims.  They
drove down to CSP constantly and talked to many inmates and
learned about their experiences being kept away from outdoor
exercise.  And by the end of 2013 they had gathered enough
evidence that we were able to file this case -- the case that just
settled -- as a class action with three named plaintiffs."

On What The Recreation Spaces Will Look Like

"They're terrific yards.  If you imagine CSP looks like a clover,
a three-leaf clover.  And at the edge of each of those there will
be built a yard.  So there are three new yards, identical and each
one has a half of a basketball court.  It has a half track and it
has a table, and I believe it's going to have lifting equipment."


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Former Student Files Class Action Over Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer C. Kerr, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
California mother of two and a former student of the now-defunct
Corinthian Colleges filed a federal class-action lawsuit on July
14, seeking damages and an end to daily collection calls over
private loans she received to attend the for-profit school.

Attorneys for Deborah Terrell say the case could involve thousands
of ex-Corinthian students and millions of dollars.

Ms. Terrell, of Riverside County, is suing the company that bought
her loan debt and the debt collector, alleging they knew
Corinthian was accused of massive fraud when they bought the debt.

Ms. Terrell took out about $19,000 in loans to attend Corinthian's
Everest College in 2014 for a nine-month medical administrative
assistant program.  In her complaint filed in Los Angeles, Ms.
Terrell says she was lied to by Corinthian recruiters about job
prospects and potential earnings after graduation.

Ms. Terrell got straight A's in all her classes and received
special awards and recognition.  What she still doesn't have is a
job in her field of study, according to the lawsuit.  Most of the
loan money she received was in the form of federal student loans,
which have since been forgiven by the Education Department.  For
the private loan money, originally $4,900, her lawyers say she
gets about five phone calls a day from collectors harassing her.

"These private lenders are victimizing these students a second
time by continuing to try and collect on debt that was incurred
through fraud and deceit," said Anne Richardson, directing
attorney of the Consumer Law Project at Public Counsel.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status and names Turnstile Capital
Management, LLC, the debt buyer; Balboa Student Loan Trust, the
debt holder; and University Accounting Service, LLC, the debt
collector.  The debt was bought from Corinthian, which had created
its own loan program.  At the time of the sale, the suit says,
Corinthian was under investigation by more than 20 states'
attorneys general as well as federal officials.

A whistleblower raised concerns about Corinthian in 2011, alleging
that employees of the for-profit chain fabricated employers to
make it appear as though unemployed graduates had secured good
jobs in their areas of study.  California's attorney general filed
a lawsuit in 2013, alleging rampant lies to students about job
placement.

Corinthian filed for bankruptcy protection last year, closing
schools and leaving thousands of students with hefty debt.

The Education Department continues to vet thousands of requests
from Corinthian students for relief from their federal loans.  So
far, it has erased the debt for more than 11,000 former Corinthian
students, totaling more than $170 million. That number is expected
to go up, with an estimated $3.6 billion in federal loans given to
Corinthian students.


DALLAS CENTRAL: Sued in Tex. Over Unfair Property Value Appraisal
----------------------------------------------------------------
CWS WEND CREEKSIDE, LLC, CWS WEND SHADOWOOD, LLC, CWS WEND
SUBURBAN, LLC, AND EISEL WEST END, LLC (Marquis West End
Apartments), the Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08267 (D. Tex., July 12, 2016),
seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and
non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it
pertains to Plaintiffs' property).

Around May, 2016, the Plaintiffs learned that the Appraisal
District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the
Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County,
Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal
District appraised the value of the Property at $30,000,000.

The complaint asserts that the value placed on the Property
represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised
value is unfair and discriminatory, arrived at through the
adoption, application, use and enforcement of a fundamentally
erroneous and unlawful plan, method and formula of valuation and
assessment, it adds.

Dallas Central is responsible for appraising property for the
purpose of ad valorem property tax assessment on behalf of 61
local governing bodies in Dallas County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Kathleen P. Donovan, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN. P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  kdonovan@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Sued in Tex. Over Unfair Property Value Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CWS ROYALE-FRANCISCAN, L.P. and CWS ROYALE-SW, L.P. (Marquis at
Turtle Creek Apartments), the Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08272 (D. Tex.,
July 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the
appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs' property).

Around May, 2016, Plaintiffs learned that the Appraisal District
had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for
use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in
assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District
appraised the value of the Property at $14,856,180.

The complaint asserts that the value placed on the Property
represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised
value is unfair and discriminatory, arrived at through the
adoption, application, use and enforcement of a fundamentally
erroneous and unlawful plan, method and formula of valuation and
assessment, it adds.

Dallas Central is responsible for appraising property for the
purpose of ad valorem property tax assessment on behalf of the 61
local governing bodies in Dallas County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Kathleen P. Donovan, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN. P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  kdonovan@gpd.com


DENSO CORP: Settles Automobile Dealership Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENSO Corporation and its certain consolidated subsidiaries have
entered into Settlement Agreements with the Automobile Dealership
Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs in putative class action
lawsuits in the United States.

1. Background of Lawsuits and Settlements

Since October 2011, putative auto parts class action lawsuits have
been brought against DENSO in the United States alleging that the
plaintiffs incurred damages as a result of alleged violations of
the United States antitrust laws.  These lawsuits have been merged
as a multi-district-litigation pending in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan.  After extensive negotiations, DENSO
has reached settlements with the Automobile Dealership Plaintiffs
and the End-Payor Plaintiffs. These settlements are still subject
to approval by the Court.

2. Settlement Plaintiffs

Automobile Dealership Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs

3. Settlement Amount

US$61.2 million (approximately 6.4 billion yen) to the Automobile
Dealership Plaintiffs and US$193.8 million (approximately 20.4
billion yen) to the End-Payor Plaintiffs.

4. Effect on Financials

DENSO does not expect any significant impact on its consolidated
financial forecast for the year ending March 31, 2017 as a result
of this matter.

It is DENSO's policy to comply with all applicable antitrust laws.
Since its U.S. subsidiary was raided by the U.S. Department of
Justice in February 2010, DENSO group companies have been taking
various preventive measures, including implementing more stringent
compliance rules, more enhanced compliance training and more
meticulous compliance monitoring, in order to further ensure that
they comply with all applicable antitrust laws.  DENSO believes it
is in complete compliance with all antitrust laws.

DENSO is committed to prevent recurrence of any inappropriate
conduct and strives to restore full confidence from all
stakeholders by complying with all applicable antitrust laws
around the world.


DOLLAR TREE: Judge Cuts Fees of Employees' Attorneys to $1-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Daugherty, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that a
federal judge signed off on letting Dollar Tree pay a group of
current and former employees $600,000 to settle claims they were
routinely required to work "off the clock" without pay.

But U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson wasn't willing to let the
Chesapeake-based retailer pay the employees' attorneys $1.575
million for handling the case.  Citing a lack of specificity in
the lawyers' paperwork, he cut the fees to $1 million.

The move saved Dollar Tree $575,000.

"Considering that counsel have twice submitted an inadequately
documented fee petition, the court is unable to assess the
reasonableness of hours counsel expended," Judge Jackson said in
court documents, explaining his decision.  He said he pegged the
final bill at $1 million after "a tedious review" of the attorney
fee petition and the work it outlined.

Attorneys for Dollar Tree and the employees declined to comment.

Class-action lawsuits involve a large number of people with
similar experiences.  They usually help people whose cases, on
their own, would garner too little money to make them worth the
cost or effort.

In the Dollar Tree lawsuit, filed in 2012, the plaintiffs claimed
they were required to work during their lunch breaks and after
their shifts had ended.  It amounted to about 30 or 45 minutes
each day.

The plaintiffs' lawyers claimed that about 270,000 current and
former workers could have qualified for the lawsuit, which
initially estimated the damages at more than $5 million.

The lawyers now acknowledge that was an overstatement and argue
$600,000 is a fair settlement.

It took more than a year for Dollar Tree and the employees to
finalize the settlement.

In March 2015, attorneys for both sides approached the court with
a plan to pay a group of more than 4,200 plaintiffs $300,000.  The
employees' attorneys were to receive an additional $1.9 million
from Dollar Tree for handling the case.

Judge Jackson rejected the agreement, calling the proposed
settlement minuscule and the proposed fees "excessive."  In a
written opinion, he said the attorneys failed to explain how the
damages were calculated or why the fees were justified.

The attorneys went back to Judge Jackson in December with a new
deal: The employees would get $600,000, and their attorneys would
get $1.575 million.  That agreement would have cost Dollar Tree
$25,000 less than the original one.

Judge Jackson took no action on the agreement for more than six
months.  He issued an opinion in May cutting the fees, but the
attorneys questioned some of the details.  He issued an amended
opinion in June that ended the lawsuit.

Employees involved in the lawsuit may call 240-389-2437 for more
information about the settlement.


DONNA KARAN: 2nd Cir. Returns Actions to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, remanded these
cases: (1) DEVORAH CRUPER-WEINMANN, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PARIS
BAGUETTE AMERICA, INC., doing business as Paris Baguette,
Defendant-Appellee, and (2) YEHUDA KATZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
THE DONNA KARAN COMPANY LLC, THE DONNA KARAN COMPANY STORE LLC,
DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 14-
3709-cv, 15-464-cv (2nd Cir.), to the Southern District of New
York for further proceedings after the court granted appellants
the opportunity to particularize their allegations.

Both "Weinmann" and "Katz" actions alleges that their
corresponding defendants violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by issuing a receipt with the full expiration
date of the credit card printed on it and listing the first six
and final four digits of the credit card number, respectively.

The Second Circuit effected the doctrine in the case captioned,
"Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016)", where plaintiffs
must plead to adequately allege a concrete injury. The order for
appellants to replead is within the trial court's power to allow
or to require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the
complaint or by affidavits, further particularized allegations of
fact deemed supportive of plaintiff's standing. If, after the
given opportunity, the plaintiff's standing does not adequately
appear from all materials of record, the complaint will be
dismissed, the Second Circuit said.

The Second Circuit noted that from whatever final decision the
district courts make, its jurisdiction to consider a subsequent
appeal may be invoked by any party by notification to the Clerk of
the Court within ten days of the district courts' decision, in
which event the renewed appeal will be assigned to the panel.

A copy of the Second Circuit's order dated June 30, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/BP0nCufrom Leagle.com.

Paris Baguette America Inc. Joshua A. Berman --
joshua.berman@troutmansanders.com -- (Mary Jane Yoon, on the
brief), Troutman Sanders LLP, New York, NY. Appearing for
Appellee.

The Donna Karan Company, LLC, The Donna Karan Company Store, LLC,
Donna Karan International, Inc.: Gregg M. Mashberg --
gmashberg@proskauer.com -- (David A. Munkittrick, Charles S. Sims,
on the brief), Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY. Appearing for
Appellees.


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Sued Over False Ad for Banana Boat Sunscreen
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY,
a foreign business corporation; PLA YTEX PRODUCTS, LLC, f/k/a PLA
YTEX PRODUCTS, INC., a foreign limited liability corporation; and
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC, a foreign business corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. BC626661 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 12, 2016),
seeks to halt the dissemination of false, misleading and deceptive
advertising message of Banana Boat Kids - sun protection factor
(SPF) 50 product.

The Plaintiffs further seek to correct the false and misleading
perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and obtain
redress for those who have purchased this product.

The Defendants deception carried onto the Banana Boat website in
which Defendants claim, "Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 Product is
equipped with Board-Spectrum ultraviolet (UV) A and UVB
protection" and their "exclusive, tear-free, string-free formula
lets them run around outside safely protected from the sun. The
Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, for years that
Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 sunscreen product does not contain the UV
protection that the Defendants advertise, leading the Plaintiff
and Class members to trust on a product which contains inaccurate
and significantly inflated SPF number that does not perform as
advertised.

The Defendants distribute, market and sell sunscreen products and
several products with SPF of 50 for children ("Banana Boat" or
"the Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 Products").

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Farahi, Esq.
          Raymond M. Collins, Esq.
          F ARAHI LAW FIRM, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 230
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 774 4500
          Facsimile: (424) 295 0557


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Zolandz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Zolandz moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00949-PP (E.D.
Wisc.).  The Plaintiff further asks that the Court both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the motion.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, and appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Counsel.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5GhZplx4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FENTON & MCGARVEY: Tetik Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Tetik moves the Court for class certification in the lawsuit
titled Lisa Tetik, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fenton & McGarvey Law Firm, P.S.C., a
Kentucky corporation, and Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 1:16-cv-04802 (N.D.
Ill.).

Ms. Tetik also asks the Court to allow her to represent a class of
all persons similarly situated in the state of Illinois from whom
the Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt
allegedly owed for a Comenity Bank/Dress Barn credit card, via the
same form collection letter that the Defendants sent to her, from
one year before the date of the Complaint to the present.  The
action seeks a finding that the Defendants' form collection letter
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and asks that the
Court award damages as authorized by Section 1692k(a)(2) of the
FDCPA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6sl7G7tm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Court Hears Arguments in Jeep Cherokee Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that a
lawyer for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles told the Georgia Court of
Appeals on July 12 that his client didn't get a fair trial in
Bainbridge, Georgia, last year, leading to an unreasonable award
against the carmaker in a wrongful death case.

But Thomas Dupree Jr., a Washington, D.C.-based partner with
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, wasn't able to finish his first sentence
before Judge Christopher McFadden interrupted to ask Mr. Dupree
whether he was actually at that trial.

"No," Mr. Dupree replied.  Chrysler hired him for the appeal.
Other members of the panel -- Presiding Judge Yvette Miller and
Judge Carla McMillian -- jumped in with frequent questions.  But
Mr. Dupree did eventually finish his opening sentence: "This
appeal comes because a judge allowed the trial to spiral out of
control, ending with a shocking and irrational verdict," he said.

Four-year-old Remi Walden died in 2012 when a pickup truck hit his
aunt's 1999 Jeep Cherokee from behind and the gas tank exploded.
Lawyers for his parents alleged during the 2015 trial that the
company ignored concerns about putting the fuel tank behind the
rear axle.  The company's counsel argued that the tank's position
was safe.

The jury awarded $150 million, which South Georgia Circuit Judge
Kevin Chason shaved to $40 million.

Mr. Dupree argued that Judge Chason allowed the jury to hear
improper and inflammatory information about the company's wealth
and the chairman's pay and even suggestions that corporate
executives should be in prison.

"The trial was tainted," Mr. Dupree said.  The fact that Judge
Chason later reduced the award, Mr. Dupree said, "does nothing to
cure the taint."  The only remedy, he said, would be for the
appeals judges to grant a new trial -- or throw out the case.

He said the rear-mounted gas tank on the Jeep Cherokee in the case
"not only met but exceeded federal safety standards."  Thus, he
said, the reckless design allegations in the lawsuit couldn't
possibly be true.  "It's not even close," Mr. Dupree said.

When it was time for the other side to argue on behalf of
Remi Walden's family, McFadden's first question provided the
opening. Jim Butler Jr. of Butler, Wooten & Peak started by
introducing members of the trial team sitting at his table: his
son, James Butler III of Butler Tobin in Atlanta, former Georgia
Secretary of State L. Catharine Cox and Bainbridge lawyer and
Decatur County State Court Judge George Floyd.

"We were all there. We tried the case," Mr. Butler said.
Then he lit into Dupree's accusations of unfairness.

Far from being driven by passion and prejudice as Chrysler
alleged, the judge was "even-handed with everything," Mr. Butler
argued.

"It was a product that was indefensible," Mr. Butler said.  "They
had to defend it because it would affect other cases.  They said
it was completely safe.  Nobody on Earth believes that."


FORD MOTOR: Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling in "MacDonald" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Jean MacDonald, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case
No. 3:13-cv-02988-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Jean MacDonald, et al. v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 16-16252, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 10,
2016, District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar granted in part and
denied, in part, the motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and
class representative enhancement awards filed by Plaintiffs Jean
MacDonald, Veronica H. Aguirre and Brian C. Barbee.

Judge Tigar awarded $843,433.50 in attorneys' fees.  The judge,
however, denied the plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of
expenses and costs, as well as the plaintiffs' request for
incentive awards.  A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's May 31, 2016
order is available at https://is.gd/0KMIMm from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action on June 28, 2013 on
behalf of individuals who purchased or leased 2005-2008 Ford
Escape Hybrid vehicles and/or 2006-2008 Mercury Mariner Hybrid
vehicles ("Class Vehicles") against the defendant, Ford Motor
Company.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Class Vehicles, equipped
with the Motor Electronic Cooling System (MECS), contained
defective coolant pumps that caused abrupt loss of power, often at
highway speeds, and consequently presented a safety risk to
drivers.  The plaintiffs further alleged that Ford knew or should
have known about the defect and failed to inform consumers.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Jean MacDonald, Veronica H. Aguirre and Brian
C. Barbee are represented by:

          Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Tarek Zohdy, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-8032
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Appellant FORD MOTOR COMPANY is represented by:

          Krista L. Lenart, Esq.
          John Mark Thomas, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          2723 South State Street
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7676
          Facsimile: (724) 214-7696
          E-mail: klenart@dykema.com
                  jthomas@dykema.com

               - and -

          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: anassihi@shb.com


FOSTER FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Humane Certification Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Panoo, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that a Los
Angeles woman has filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status
against Foster Farms and the American Humane Association, citing
the use of the association's humane-certified label on Foster
Farms chicken as misleading.

The lawsuit also references a video in which a Foster Farms
employee in Fresno is seen tearing feathers out of chickens,
beating them and throwing them around.

In the lawsuit, Carol Leining said she paid more to buy chicken
with the American Humane Association certification label because
she believed it meant the chickens produced by Foster Farms were
"afforded a comfortable existence and a quick and painless death."

Mr. Leining's lawsuit claims the association's standards are not
much different than industry standards, and the birds suffer from
forced molting, beak-trimming and mutilation, among other
practices that are still allowed under the association's
standards.

In a response on July 12, Foster Farms said the original action
filed by Mr. Leining was dismissed May 9 by Los Angeles Superior
Court.

"The Fresno Sheriff's Department investigation and the District
Attorney determined that there was no evidence of systemic animal
welfare abuse at Foster Farms' Fresno facility," a statement
released to The Fresno Bee said.


FULL TILT: Quiet Settlement Reached in Poker Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
FlushDraw reports that amid the ongoing and still incomplete
remission process for former US-based customers of the original
Full Tilt Poker, a quiet settlement was reached in the class-
action lawsuit brought by several former prominent players against
FTP founders and board members Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson.
News of the settlement was not announced by any of the parties in
the litigation.

Back in April of 2012, four former Full Tilt customers sued
Lederer and Ferguson over their frozen bankrolls.  The lawsuit was
one of several against Full Tilt and its leading executives by the
players -- Steve Segal, Nick Hammer, Robin Hougdahl and Todd
Terry, and was actually a modified version of an earlier class
action brought by the same four players in 2011, just a few months
after Black Friday.  (A fifth player, Bradley Clasen, was added to
the 2012 lawsuit at a later date.)

That lawsuit lingered for several years as Full Tilt itself was
dismantled, and its identifiable assets transferred to PokerStars
parent Rational Group as part of PokerStars's own massive $731
million settlement with the DOJ in 2012.  The PokerStars
settlement created the funds for the Full Tilt remission process,
as it became known that Full Tilt's board members and executives
has enriched themselves at the expense of Full Tilt players'
bankrolls via hundreds of millions of dollars of highly
questionable owner distributions.

The class-action lawsuit entered settlement discussions at some
point last fall, roughly in August or September.  The reasons for
the talks have not been disclosed, but it's likely that the
plaintiff players received remission payments, making the lawsuit
moot.  Nonetheless, considerable legal expenses were incurred
between 2011 and the final settlement in the case, which was
confirmed in January.  The involved players could not drop the
lawsuit without incurring that legal expense themselves.

According to the final settlement, attorneys for the plaintiffs
received $260,000, and a nominal payment of $500 each was given to
the five players who brought the lawsuit, to be taken out of the
$260,000 total.  Court records show that the settlement was agreed
to by both sides just before Christmas of 2015, and then approved
by presiding judge Andrew P. Gordon on January 6, 2016.

As a result of the settlement, the case, known as Segal et al v.
Lederer et al (2:12-cv-00601-APG-GWF) was dismissed with
prejudice, thus barring class-action claims of a similar nature.
The case itself was heard in a US District Court in the District
of Nevada, which was and is Mr. Lederer's home state.

The latent settlement news combines with that of the also-latent
disclosure of the ten-year disqualification issued by Irish
business regulator OCDE against fellow Full Tilt board member (and
CEO) Ray Bitar, in conjunction with the liquidation of former Full
Tilt corporate entities Pocket Kings Limited and Rekop Limited.

Messrs. Lederer and Ferguson themselves have been in the poker
news in recent weeks in other ways, given their controversial and
largely unpopular reappearance as participants in the seven-week-
long World Series of Poker.  Both Messrs. Lederer and Ferguson
played in several of the high-buy-in events on the WSOP slate, and
both were confronted on several occasions by other former Full
Tilt players.  The reappearance by both former Full Tilt execs was
generally credited to the possibility that a five-year statute of
limitations regarding the old Full Tilt's business activities
likely expired this past April.

The poker world's wounds and scars from Full Tilt's Ponzi-style
gutting from within run deep.  It's little surprise that the old
Full Tilt stories and participants continue to draw considerable
attention, more than five years after the fact, and other Full
Tilt tales certainly remain to be told.


GEM FINANCIAL: Conditional Cert. Bid in "Dalton" Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID DALTON, YOVANI BROADUS, AND DIORI
JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEM FINANCIAL SERVICES, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 5636 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M.
Cogan granted in part and denied, in part, the plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification as a collective action under section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), court authorized
notice to the defendants' similarly situated employees, and
disclosure of by the defendants of potential plaintiffs' contact
information.

Judge Cogan granted the plaintiffs' motion with respect to the
defendants' non-exempt employees, but denied the motion with
respect to the defendants' exempt employees.

A full-text copy of Judge Cogan's July 7, 2016 memorandum decision
and order is available at https://is.gd/bg2AjY from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs commenced the collective action under the FLSA and
as a putative class action under the New York Labor Law (NYLL),
seeking unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgement interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and a
declaratory judgement that the practices complained of are
unlawful.

David Dalton, Yovani Brodus, Diori Johnson, Plaintiffs,
represented by Benjamin Weisenberg, Law Office of Everett
Carbajal, P.C., Ariel Yigal Graff -- ari@ottingerlaw.com -- The
Ottinger Firm, P.C. & Julie Y. Zong -- julie@ottingerlaw.com --
The Ottinger Firm, P.C..

Gem Financial Services, Inc., Gem Pawnbrokers of NY Inc., Gem
Pawnbrokers Long Island, Corp., Gem of Mount Vernon, Inc., Gem of
Melville, Inc., Gem of Merrick, Inc., Gem of Hickville, LLC, Gem
of Valley Stream, LLC, 608-8th Ave Corp., Defendant, represented
by Gary Trachten -- gtrachten@kudmanlaw.com -- Kudman Trachten,
LLP & Paul J. Solda -- ps@soldalaw.com -- LAW OFFICE PAUL J.
SOLDA.


GENERAL MOTORS: Claims to Spike Following Ignition Switch Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Levine-Weinberg, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that in
2014 and 2015, General Motors reported billions of dollars of
charges related to its faulty ignition switch scandal.  These
charges represented the cost of recalling millions of vehicles,
payments to a victim compensation fund, and a $900 million
settlement with the Department of Justice.

The only good news for investors was that the General appeared to
be moving past this scandal by the end of last year.

It isn't getting off that easily, though.  On July 13, a federal
appeals court overturned a 2015 bankruptcy court ruling that had
barred customers from suing GM over damages that occurred prior to
the company's 2009 bankruptcy filing.  This development could
theoretically open up General Motors to billions of dollars in new
claims.

Liability expands
As part of the bankruptcy process in 2009, General Motors was able
to leave most of its unwanted liabilities behind.

After the ignition switch problems came to light, GM voluntarily
agreed to compensate certain victims who died or were injured in
ignition-switch-related crashes predating its bankruptcy.
Nevertheless, numerous cases were blocked by the finding that "New
GM" wasn't liable for misconduct at "Old GM."

The recent appeals court decision removes -- or at least blurs --
this distinction. Judge Denny Chin reasoned that Old GM knew or
should have been aware of the ignition switch defect before the
bankruptcy filing, yet it did not inform customers.  As a result,
those customers didn't get their day in court to press their
claims during the bankruptcy process.  Judge Chin argued that
shielding New GM from liability in those cases would be rewarding
Old GM's misconduct.

This ruling could impact some pending cases involving injuries or
death.  But the main effect is that it would allow a huge number
of loss-of-value claims to go forward.  These claims total as much
as $10 billion.

The damage will probably be a lot lighter
Even with the recent ruling, the plaintiffs' lawyers face an
uphill battle in any case blaming the ignition switch scandal for
causing vehicles to lose value.

General Motors has already asked a federal judge to dismiss these
loss-of-value class-action suits, arguing that the plaintiffs
can't prove that they suffered any loss.  Indeed, the plaintiffs'
lawyers appear to be relying on a difficult-to-prove theory that
the ignition switch defect and recalls negatively impacted resale
values for the affected models.

It would be one thing if the affected models were luxury cars that
were expected to retain a lot of value even after 10 years.
However, pretty much all of the affected models were small, cheap,
and generally mediocre cars.

The Chevy Cobalt was the most common of the recalled vehicles. A
CNN Money story described it thus: "The automaker never really
wanted to build the compact sedan, and it showed.  Critics and car
buyers alike reacted with little enthusiasm for the vehicle." The
Cobalt was built solely to keep assembly plants busy and help GM
meet federal fuel-economy regulations.

The same could be said for most of the other models affected by
the faulty ignition switch.  None of these models are still sold
by GM.  In fact, several were sold under the discontinued Saturn
and Pontiac brands.  All of these factors suggest that the
affected models would not be worth much today regardless of the
ignition switch issues.

What now?
It could take years before General Motors investors get the final
bill for the ignition switch disaster.  In all likelihood, that
total will move higher due to the recent appeals court ruling, as
GM will have to pay crash victims who weren't included in last
year's victim compensation scheme.

Fortunately for the company, the more numerous loss-of-value
claims probably won't stand up in court.  Even if they do, the new
GM is a stable, highly profitable company that routinely churns
out multibillion-dollar quarterly profits.  A worst-case-scenario
$10 billion loss wouldn't seriously threaten GM's future.


GOGO INC: "Salameno" Suit Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHARLES SALAMENO, MARIA-ANGELA SANZONE and
JOHN JENSEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOGO INC. and GOGO LLC, Defendants, No.
16-CV-0487 (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Jack B. Weinstein granted the
defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

Judge Weinstein held that Gogo's terms of use bind the plaintiffs,
and sophisticated business travelers who repeatedly purchased and
used Gogo's product can be assumed to have been aware of the
arbitration clause where they repeatedly ordered the service.

Judge Weinstein also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike
an affidavit and attachments that Gogo submitted with its moving
papers.

A full-text copy of Judge Weinstein's July 7, 2016 memorandum,
order and judgment is available at https://is.gd/NYkU6o from
Leagle.com.

The defendants Gogo Inc. and Gogo LLC provide internet access on
airplanes.  The plaintiffs Charles Salameno, Maria-Angela Sanzone,
and John Jensen are dissatisfied customers who repeatedly used
Gogo's product over a period of months or years.  The plaintiffs
commenced the action, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, alleging violations of consumer protection
statutes and making claims for breach of contract, fraud,
promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.

Charles Salameno, Maria-Angela Sanzone, John Jensen, Plaintiffs,
represented by Clifford Tucker, Fisher Injury Lawyers.

Gogo Inc., Gogo LLC, Defendants, represented by Anthony Joseph
Laura -- alaura@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker Green.


HENDRICK HONDA: Dealership Closing Fee Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Smith, writing for Aiken Standard, reports that South
Carolina lawmakers have received more than $227,000 in campaign
contributions from automobile dealers and industry lobbyists so
far in 2016, a review of ethics filing shows.

An investigation by the Aiken Standard also found that donations
started rolling in shortly after state lawmakers introduced a bill
easing restrictions the S.C. Supreme Court imposed on closing fees
that auto dealers charge consumers.

Fees typically add several hundred dollars to the final sales
price of an automobile.

Legislation was first filed in December 2015, weeks after the
Supreme Court upheld a nearly $2.9 million class action judgment
against an Upstate dealership.

Gov. Nikki Haley signed one of the bills into law in June,
according to legislative records.

E. Sims Floyd, director of the S.C. Automobile Dealers
Association, or SCADA, which according to S.C. Ethics Commission
records has donated to more than 50 state lawmakers this year,
couldn't be reached for comment.

A SCADA representative said on July 12 that Floyd would be out of
the country for the rest of the week.

State legislators insist the donations didn't influence their
vote, noting in most cases, contributions arrived after they had
voted.

"I had contributions from all over the state from Charleston,
Beaufort and Myrtle Beach," said Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, who
reported $39,249.16 in auto dealer-related contributions, mostly
in June.

Sen. Martin's total was second in the state behind Sen. Tom
Corbin, R-Greenville ($43,750.39).

"For whatever reason, they felt inclined and said we'd like to
contribute to his campaign, unsolicited," Sen. Martin said.

Sen. Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, whose district includes parts of
Aiken County, reported $26,800 in auto dealer-related donations,
the third highest in the state.

Sen. Massey said the receipt or promise of campaign contributions
had nothing to do with his support of the closing fee bill.

The reason so many lawmakers signed on to the closing fee
legislation was because many lawmakers thought the Supreme Court
overreached in its November 2015 decision, the Edgefield senator
said.

"This was the latest example of the majority of the court knowing
where they wanted to go," Sen. Massey said.  "They knew what they
wanted the law to be and how to get there.  They were making the
law.  That was not the intent of the General Assembly."

Critics disagree.

Sue Berkowitz, director of the South Carolina Appleseed Legal
Justice Center in Columbia, who testified against Senate bill 911
in committee hearings, said the timing of donations and
legislative action gives the appearance that contributions
influenced lawmakers' decision making.


"The most frustrating part is we're all being represented by the
legislature, not just the special interests, but all of us,"
Ms. Berkowitz said.

Who received donations

Seventy-nine state lawmakers and a Senate candidate reported
receiving campaign contributions from automobile dealer interests
since December 2015, according to Ethics Commission filings.

In the 2016 election cycle, industry lobbyists shelled out at
least $227,703.56 to state lawmakers and candidates, with
Sens. Corbin, Martin and Massey accounting for nearly $110,000,
filings show.

Sen. Martin, the lead sponsor of S. 911, which was cosponsored by
Sens. Corbin and Massey, was defeated in June in a runoff by GOP
challenger Rex Rice.

Sen. Martin had served in the Senate since 1993 and in the House
from 1979-1992, according to the General Assembly website.

Sen. Corbin narrowly defeated GOP challenger John White with 51.5
percent of the vote, while Sen. Massey defeated challenger John
Pettigrew, with 58 percent, according to scvotes.org.

Both Sens. Martin and Massey said the issue of automobile dealer
donations arose during their campaigns but don't think the issue
had a significant impact.

Sen. Corbin couldn't be reached for comment.

Sen. Massey said his interest in the closing fee legislation
centered on concerns he expressed about judicial overreach.  He
also noted consumers have never been bound to purchase a vehicle
if they disagree with how closing costs are computed.

"The customer gets to make the decision about whether they want to
negotiate that price or walk away," Sen. Massey said.  "The
purchase of a car is perhaps the most negotiated purchase in the
country."

Sen. Martin said it's unreasonable to expect auto dealers to
itemize every penny of a closing cost.

"You didn't have to justify your computation as to how you arrived
to the closing fee," Sen. Martin said.

Twenty-three other senators reported auto dealer-related
contributions on their campaign finance reports.

Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, was fourth in the Senate, at
$5,798.53, followed by Sen. Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence, at
$4,499.16 and Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, at $4,000.

Horry County Senators Greg Hembree, R-North Myrtle Beach, and Luke
Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach, received $3,000 apiece, records show.

Within the Aiken County legislative delegation, Sen.
Nikki Setzler, D-Lexington, reported a $500 donation from General
Motors PAC, according to his January report.

Sen. Tom Young, R-Aiken, received a $250 donation from Pendarvis
Chevrolet Inc., also in January, records show.

On the House side, 54 representatives reported $74,261.36 in
contributions from various auto dealer lobbyists. Donation amounts
ranged from $500 to nearly $3,500.

Rep. Bill Sandifer, R-Oconee, lead sponsor of House bill 4548
which Haley signed into law in June, reported $2,000 in
contributions.

Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach, led the House with $4,000,
followed by Rep. Kevin Hardee, R-Loris, with $3,499 and Rep. Jerry
Govan, D-Orangeburg, at $3,199.16.

Several House members from the Aiken County legislative delegation
reported receiving car dealer contributions.  They included Rep.
Bill Taylor, R-Aiken, $1,199.16; Rep. Bill Hixon, R-North Augusta,
$999.16; and Rep. Chris Corley, R-Graniteville, $999.16, records
show.

Reps. Bill Clyburn, D-Aiken, and Don Wells, R-Aiken, didn't report
any auto dealer donations.

The House voted 98-7 on Feb. 23 in favor of H. 4548. The third
reading was Feb. 25, which is when the bill crossed from the House
to the Senate.

Among those voting against the bill was Rep. Todd Rutherford,
D-Columbia, who's also House Minority Leader.

Legislative records list Rutherford as the only legislator
receiving an auto dealer donation -- SCADA contributed $999.16 to
his campaign -- to vote against the closing fee bill.  He couldn't
be reached for comment.

Where contributions come from

An exact tally of political contributions from auto dealer
lobbyists was not available since Ethics Commission filings do not
separate campaign contributions according to industry.

In most instances, the names of specific auto dealerships are
named in state lawmakers' ethics reports.

But in some cases, it's difficult to discern exactly who's
contributing because the donor's profession isn't always
specified.

Case in point: Sen. Larry Martin from Pickens identified donor A.
Foster McKissick III in his June campaign report as an "automobile
dealer."

Sen. Corbin merely identified Mr. McKissick III as a "business
owner" in an April ethics filing, while Sen. Lee Bright,
R-Spartanburg, used the phrase "businessman" to describe
Mr. McKissick III.

In another report, a legislator listed the names of several
contributors as "not available."

South Carolina campaign finance laws set a $1,000 cap on
contributions, but also allow donors to make individual and
corporate contributions.

Mr. McKissick III, who according to ethics filings donated to
three state senators' campaigns, is also listed in federal tax
documents as a trustee for the South Carolina Automobile Dealers
Employee Benefit Trust, which according to tax records shares the
same Columbia street address as SCADA.

SCADA as an entity donated nearly $52,000 to at least 52
individual candidates in $999.16 increments, just below the $1,000
threshold allowed by state campaign finance laws, ethics filings
show.

Mr. McKissick III isn't the only SCADA official to contribute as
an individual.

Lannes "LC" Prothro III made four donations in amounts ranging
from $100 to $450 to Sens. Martin and Massey, Sen. Kevin Johnson,
D-Clarendon, and Rep. Robert Ridgeway, D-Clarendon, ethics filings
show.

Federal tax returns list Prothro III as an immediate past
president of SCADA as well as a trustee of the association's
employee benefit trust.

Gregory "Gregg" Coleman also donated to state Senate campaigns,
contributing $1,000 to Sen. Corbin and two separate $500 donations
to Johnny Edwards, who challenged incumbent
Sen. Michael Fair, R-Greenville, in the District 6 race.

SCADA's federal tax return for 2013 listed Mr. Coleman as the
organization's president.  A SCADA news release from July 7, 2014,
said Mr. Coleman was elected president for 2014-2015.

Edwards garnered only 14.19 percent of the vote, but captured
enough votes to send the race into a runoff between William
Timmons and Fair, according to scvotes.org.

Mr. Timmons defeated Fair with more than 65 percent of the vote in
the June 28 runoff, election records state.

Legislating from the bench?
H. 4548 and S. 911 were introduced in the wake of a state Supreme
Court ruling that said Hendrick Honda of Easley improperly charged
closing fees to thousands of customers from 2002 to 2006.

A woman named Julie Freeman first filed the lawsuit in Circuit
Court.  Ms. Freeman's suit said the dealership charged her a $299
closing fee without specifying what expenses the fee covered.

According to court documents, dealership employees admitted during
testimony they couldn't specifically say how the business arrived
at the $299 figure.

A Pickens County jury in the class action suit awarded $1.45
million in actual damages to Ms. Freeman and 5,314 other
"similarly situated car buyers," according to court records.

The trial judge doubled the award amount to $2.9 million, court
records state.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which in November 2015
affirmed Circuit Judge Doyet Early III's original ruling in a 3-2
decision.

H. 4548 and S. 911 were subsequently filed in December 2015, weeks
after the Supreme Court verdict.

Barnwell attorneys Terry Richardson and James Butler, who
represented Ms. Freeman in the Supreme Court case, were on
vacation and unavailable for comment.

Brady Thomas, who also litigated the case on Ms. Freeman's behalf,
declined to comment, citing related litigation that's still
ongoing.

In the majority opinion, Justice Donald Beatty said dealerships
should adopt a more specific accounting of closing costs.

"We agree with the trial judge's interpretation that the amount
charged must bear some relation to the actual expenses incurred
for the closing," Justice Beatty said.

Not specifying how closing costs are computed violates the S.C.
Dealers Act, which says it's a violation of state law for dealers
to "engage in any action which is arbitrary, in bad faith, or
unconscionable and which causes damage to any of the parties or to
the public," the law states.

"We find that such a practice effectively circumvents the purpose
of the 'Closing Fee' Statute and the Dealers Act, which is, in
part, to protect consumers from charges that are above the
advertised price listed by the dealer," Justice Beatty wrote.

Justice John Kittredge thought otherwise in his dissent.
Then-Acting Justice James Moore concurred.

Justice Kittredge said in his opinion he would have reversed the
$2.9 million verdict, saying the Easley dealership was acting in
accordance with S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs guidelines.

"It is undisputed that Hendrick Honda complied with the
Department's Administrative Interpretation in every respect,"
Justice Kittredge wrote.  "Having complied with the Department's
Administrative Interpretation, there can be no liability."

General Assembly responds
Lawmakers insist there was no quid pro quo in framing closing fee
legislation.  They say the state Supreme Court overreached in its
decision, and that auto dealers are businesses that also deserve
protection.

"It really adversely affected them," Sen. Martin said of the
Supreme Court decision.  "This is what I think drove them
(dealers) as passionately as they were to get the bill passed.

"That decision somewhat left dealers in a situation if you didn't
account for every penny of the closing fee and the way the court
decided the case, you were apt to be sued under the Unfair Trade
Practices Act again," Sen. Martin continued.  "It really made them
difficult to operate in that environment."

H. 4548 places oversight of closing fees in the hands of the S.C.
Department of Consumer Affairs.

Car buyers can still sue, but dealers are no longer required to
itemize closing fees.

S. 911 was similar to H. 4548, but contained additional language
making it more difficult for consumers to file suit against auto
dealers.

"The South Carolina Supreme Court's Opinion, directly and
adversely threatens the economic stability and ongoing viability
of owners and operators of motor vehicle dealerships, their
employees, vendors, customers, and communities," the Senate bill
states.

S. 911 never made it out of committee.  H. 4548, however, gained
greater traction.

The bill passed by overwhelming majorities in both chambers. Haley
signed it into law June 3.

Ms. Berkowitz, with the S.C. Appleseed Legal Justice Center, said
she's pleased the Senate bill stalled, but thinks the House bill
punishes consumers.

"There are a whole lot more people buying cars who will be hurt
than car dealers who'll be hurt because of the change," she said.

Legislator donations from auto dealers (Local interest)

-- Sen. Shane Massey, R-Edgefield       $26,800
-- Sen. Tom Young, R-Aiken                 $500
-- Sen. Nikki Setzler, D-Lexington         $500
-- Rep. Bill Taylor, R-Aiken             $1,199.16
-- Rep. Bill Hixon, R-North Augusta        $999.16
-- Rep. Chris Corley, R-Graniteville       $999.16
-- Rep. Don Wells, R-Aiken                   $0
-- Rep. Bill Clyburn, D-Aiken                $0

Source: S.C. Ethics Commission

Legislator donations from auto dealers (statewide)

-- Sen. Tom Corbin, R-Greenville        $43,750.39
-- Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens         $39,249.16
-- Sen. Shane Massey, R-Edgefield       $26,800
-- Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort            $5,798.53
-- Sen. Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence      $4,499.16
-- Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley         $4,000
-- Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach    $4,000
-- Rep. Kevin Hardee, R-Loris            $3,499
-- Rep. Jerry Govan, D-Orangeburg        $3,199.16


HEWLETT PACKARD: Tech Support Workers Lose Class Action Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Register reports that Hewlett-Packard has succeeded in
breaking up a class-action lawsuit brought by its tech support
workers who say the IT giant stiffed them on overtime pay.

In an order handed down on July 13, Judge Beth Labson Freeman said
the enterprise field-support technicians can't band together
against the Palo Alto goliath, and must take on the biz one-on-
one.

The class, filed in a northern district court of California and
led by named plaintiffs Eric Benedict and David Mustain (not that
one), accused HP of illegally making their positions exempt from
overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours per week.

After notice of the suit was filed in 2013, 1,385 workers signed
on to join the class.  Salaries for the workers ranged from below
$40,000 to $100,000 yearly.

One slightly confusing aspect of this legal fight is that the
lawsuit is pursuing Hewlett-Packard Company, but the organization
broke in half in 2015 into HP Inc (which flogs PCs and printers)
and Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (which flogs servers and similar
gear).  Still, lawyers acting on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company
are battling away with Benedict and Mr. Mustain.  No one was able
to clarify exactly which bit of HP is being sued.

Before the split, HP claimed that the employees were not eligible
to sue in a class action, as their various positions were not
similar enough to warrant a single claim.  Rather, HP argued (and
the court agreed), the employees should be forced to file their
cases separately.

The court notes that the employees taking part in the class
covered multiple roles and service tiers, some responding to field
calls directly and others providing remote work or developing
programs within HP.  Many reported to different managers at
different locations.  Additionally, the filing noted, some of the
class members had been able to define or add responsibilities to
their roles.

"Plaintiffs' attempt to gloss over significant differences in
Collective Members' job duties by relying on their shared Job
Title and HP's blanket exemption policy fails to show that they
are similarly situated for several reasons," Judge Freeman wrote.

"The fact that an employer classifies all or most of a particular
class of employees as exempt does not eliminate the need to make a
factual determination as to whether class members are actually
performing similar duties."

Because of this, the court agreed with HP's argument that the
class action was too broad to be tried as a single case.

In doing so, HP will make it harder for the individuals to
successfully sue, as they will no longer be able to pool into a
large class to fight the company's massive legal team.

Both sides have said, in a separate filing, that they are actively
in settlement negotiations with a mediator.


HOG & ROCKS: Faces "Greenblatt" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against HOG & ROCKS, LLC.  The case is
styled EMMMANUELA GREENBLATT and NICOLE CAHILL, INDIVIDUALLY, ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE
GENERAL PUBLIC, Plaintiffs, v. HOG & ROCKS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION and DOES 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. CGC 16 552924
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. John
K. Stewart.

Hog & Rocks offers party venue accommodation for up to 75 guests.


HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Appeal Filed in Suit Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann
Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn and Julie Reiskinfiled filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit originally
initiated as Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, et al.
v. Hospitality Properties Trust, Case No. 3:15-cv-00221-JST, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
wheelchair-accessible transportation in hotels that provide
transportation to nondisabled guests.  The complaint alleged
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Civil Rights Education and
Enforcement Center, et al. v. Hospitality Properties Trust, Case
No. 16-16269, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Civil Rights Education and Enforcement
Center, Ann Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn and Julie Reiskin are
represented by:

          Julia Campins, Esq.
          CAMPINS BENHAM-BAKER, LLP
          57 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 373-5333
          E-mail: julia@cbbllp.com

               - and -

          Timothy Patrick Fox, Esq.
          FOX & ROBERTSON, P.C.
          104 Broadway
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 595-9700
          Facsimile: (303) 595-9705
          E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com

               - and -

          Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
          Julie Wilensky, Esq.
          Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center
          2120 University Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 431-8484
          E-mail: blee@lewisfeinberg.com
                  jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com

Defendant-Appellee Hospitality Properties Trust is represented by:

          David Raizman, Esq.
          Christopher F. Wong, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 438-1285
          E-mail: david.raizman@ogletreedeakins.com
                  christopher.wong@ogletreedeakins.com


ILLINOIS: Department of Labor Sued Over Wage Claim Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BYRNE, on behalf of Himself, and all employees of Hayes Beer
Distributing Company, the Plaintiffs, v. HUGO CHAVIANO, Director
of the ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (IDOL), RAYMOND CYRUS,
Administrative Law Judge at the ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, the
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and HAYES BEER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 2016-CH-08764 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 1,
2016), seeks review of the May 27,2016 "Notice of Wage Claim
Dismissal", because IDOL's dismissal decision and order, is
arbitrary and capricious, erroneous as a matter of law, and
against the manifest weight of the evidence.

On June 11, 2014, the Union, on behalf of the Hayes workers it
represents, filed a letter complaint with the IDOL based, in part,
on Hayes' deduction of money from the employees' wages in
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA).
The Union's letter complaint alleged, in part, that Hayes was
deducting money from employees' wages for beer and other beverages
they delivered to customers, which remained on sale at the
customers' location beyond the manufactures' determined expiration
date, which is commonly known in the industry as "stale beer."

According to the complaint, the IDOL violated its regulation by
dismissing Plaintiffs' claim without conducting a formal hearing.
The IDOL's determination that the underlying issues of the claim
arise out of the interpretation of a collective bargaining
agreement, and that IDOL is without jurisdiction to assist
Claimant in the matter, is contrary to the evidence.

The Illinois Department of Labor is the code department of the
Illinois state government that is responsible for the
administration and enforcement of more than 20 labor and safety
laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Cervone, Esq.
          Ronald M. Willis, Esq.
          DOWN, BLOCH, BENNETT,
          CERVONE, AUERBACH & YOKICH
          8 S. Michigan Ave., 1900
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 372 1361
          Facsimile: (312) 372 6599


INDIANA: To Hire More Child Abuse Caseworkers After Deaths Spike
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a recently released report by
Indiana's Department of Child Services says 66 children in the
state lost their lives because of abuse or neglect during fiscal
year 2014.

The latest statistics show a more than 25 percent increase from
the 49 child deaths in Indiana in fiscal year 2013, the Journal
Gazette reported.

The department said that half of the children who died from abuse
were one year old or younger.  Of the neglect deaths, 46 percent
were 1 year old or younger.

In one incident, a 3-year-old boy was fatally shot in the head by
his mother's boyfriend, who pointed a gun at him while playing a
"gun game" with him.  The man, who is now serving a prison
sentence, said he forgot the gun was loaded.

There was also an increase in deaths due to lack of supervision.
Officials said children were left alone around bodies of water,
kept in homes with unsafe heating methods or practiced unsafe
sleeping methods.

"Each one of these deaths could have been prevented," said
Mary Beth Bonaventura, the department's director.

Gov. Mike Pence announced plans to hire more than 100 additional
child abuse and neglect caseworkers last year after an increase in
cases and a class-action lawsuit over allegations that the
department's caseworkers were overworked.

Ms. Bonaventura said in a statement that the issue isn't one the
department can handle alone and recommended that residents call
the Indiana Child Abuse Hotline if a child is believed to be in
danger.


INTELLICURE INC: Class Certification Hearing Held in Holt Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 20, 2016, in the case
entitled Holt Healthcare Management Services, Inc. v. Intellicure,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-07281 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a
hearing held before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin.

The minute entry states that:

   * Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and continued
     generally;

   * Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue its motion for
     class certification is granted;

   * no appearance is required on July 25, 2016.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pD3I7Yo1


JEAN COUTU: Intends to Contest Pharmacist-Owners' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. (the "Corporation" or the "Jean
Coutu Group") confirms that it has received on July 17 a copy of
the class action proceedings launched against the Jean Coutu Group
and filed by a group of pharmacist-owners operating under the
banner Jean Coutu.

The Jean Coutu Group intends to contest this action and present
its arguments in the context of these legal proceedings.

No other comments will be issued until then.

                   About The Jean Coutu Group

The Jean Coutu Group is engaged in Canadian pharmacy retailing.
The Corporation operates a network of 420 franchised stores in
Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario under the banners of PJC Jean
Coutu, PJC Clinique, PJC Sante and PJC Sante Beaute, which employs
over 20,000 people.  Furthermore, the Jean Coutu Group owns Pro
Doc Ltd ("Pro Doc"), a Quebec-based subsidiary and manufacturer of
generic drugs.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Zuniga Seeks Certification of 2 FDCPA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Zuniga asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action entitled DOMINGO ZUNIGA, an individual; on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL
SYSTEMS, LLC; and FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC.,
d/b/a FBCS INC. and FBCS, Case No. 4:16-cv-00526-ALM (E.D. Tex.),
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, may
proceed as a class action against the Defendants.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of two classes:

     Class A consists of (a) all individuals with Texas addresses
     (b) to whom FBCS (c) sent a letter offering a settlement of
     a debt (d) which debt was a credit card debt on which the
     last payment or activity had occurred more than four years
     prior to the letter, (e) which letter was sent on or after a
     date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or
     before a date 21 days after the filing of this action; and

     Class B consists of (a) all individuals with Texas addresses
     (b) to whom a letter was sent by or on behalf of Jefferson,
     (c) offering a settlement of a time-barred debt (d) which
     debt was a credit card debt on which the last payment or
     activity had occurred more than four years prior to the
     letter, (e) which letter was sent on or after a date one
     year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a
     date 21 days after the filing of this action.

Mr. Zuniga further asks that the Law Office of Jerry J. Jarzombek,
PLLC, and 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=7MACtXNz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, 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
                  fgreene@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Jerry J. Jarzombek, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JERRY JARZOMBEK, PLLC
          855 Texas Street, Suite 140
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 348-8325
          Facsimile: (817) 348-8328
          E-mail: jerryjj@airmail.net


JOHN MORRELL: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Limon" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs move the
Court to conditionally certify the case styled Maria G. Limon, Ida
Z Moreno, Claudia A. Sanchez, Yolanda Joaquin and Loyda G.
Aguilar, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. John Morrell & Co., d/b/a Curly's Foods, and Smithfield Foods,
Inc., Case No. 5:16-civ-04011-WMB (N.D. Iowa), as a collective
action.  The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   (a) approve their proposed form, and procedures for sending,
       of Notice and Plaintiff Consent Form;

   (b) direct the Defendants to, within seven days of the Court's
       Order, deliver to the Plaintiffs' counsel a list of names
       and current or last known mailing addresses of the persons
       to whom notice is to be sent;

   (c) direct Defendant John Morrell & Co. to, within three
       business days of the forgoing mailing of the Approved
       Notice by Plaintiffs' counsel, post copies of the Approved
       Notice and attached Plaintiff Consent Form in locations in
       the Curly's Plant where hourly employees routinely
       congregate prior to or after commencement of production;
       and

   (d) acknowledge the Plaintiffs' counsel's right to seek Court
       authorization to mail reminder notices during the 90-day
       notice period if such notices are shown to be necessary.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y2QQyEhb

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward J. Keane, Esq.
          KEANE LAW FIRM, P.L.C.
          600 4th Street, Suite 702
          P.O. Box 1379
          Sioux City, IA 51102
          Telephone: (712) 234-3088
          Facsimile: (712) 234-3077
          E-mail: Ed.keane@siouxcityattys.com

               - and -

          Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: seellingstad@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Sheran, Esq.
          Thomas R. Sheran, Esq.
          SHERAN LAW OFFICE P.A.
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 337-9001
          Facsimile: (612) 338-0359
          E-mail: danielsheran@sheranlaw.com
                  thomassheran@sheranlaw.com


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, on July 14
disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against Juno Therapeutics, Inc. ("Juno" or the "Company") on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between June 4,
2016, through July 7, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Juno shareholders who purchased their securities during the Class
Period may, no later than September 12, 2016, petition the Court
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
For additional information please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/juno-therapeutics-inc#join

Shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com

Juno is a biopharmaceutical company that is developing cell-based
cancer immunotherapies.  The Company's leading product candidate,
"JCAR015," is currently in clinical trials.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Juno knew that
one of the notable side effects of JCAR015 is "severe
neurotoxicity."  In May 2016, a patient in the Phase 2 trial of
JCAR015 -- the so-called "ROCKET" trial -- died of a cerebral
edema, a form of neurotoxicity.  Juno knew that the study related
death was important and consulted with the Data Safety Monitoring
Board and the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") about an
appropriate response -- yet failed to disclose the death to
investors at that time.

The complaint further alleges that in early June 2016 Juno issued
a glowing press release about JCAR015 which boasted of "[l]ower
side effects in patients with minimal disease at time of CAR T
cell infusion" and made partial, misleading disclosures about
JCAR015's side effects -- reporting that "Grade 3 or higher
neurotoxicity was observed in 15/51 (29%) patients" in a Phase 1
trial -- but which failed to disclose the patient death.  Shortly
thereafter, defendant Hans E. Bishop, Juno's Chief Executive
Officer, sold over $8.6 million worth of Juno stock -- more than
twice the value of his total Juno sales for all of 2015.  Then, in
late June or early July, two more patients in the ROCKET trial
died of cerebral edemas, which caused the FDA to issue a clinical
hold on the trial and forced the defendants to inform investors of
the study related deaths.

Following this news, shares of Juno's stock declined $13.01 per
share, or over 31.8%, to close on July 8, 2016 at $27.81 per
share.

Juno shareholders may, no later than September 12, 2016, petition
the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check.


LA UNIFIED: Loses Bid to Dismiss Fired Teachers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Favot, writing for LA School Report, reports that a
Los Angeles Superior Court judge on July 13 denied LA Unified's
request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by well-known former fifth-
grade teacher Rafe Esquith, who was fired in October.

Mr. Esquith filed the defamation lawsuit against the district in
August after he was placed on paid leave and assigned to "teacher
jail" pending an internal investigation after a fellow teacher
complained that Mr. Esquith made a joke about nudity in front of
his students.  Mr. Esquith had taught at Hobart Boulevard
Elementary School located between Koreatown and Westlake for more
than 30 years.

Students, parents and fellow teachers protested outside Hobart
Elementary last year when Mr. Esquith was removed from the
classroom.

The district's attorneys filed an anti-SLAPP motion earlier this
year seeking to dismiss the entire case.

Ben Meiselas, Mr. Esquith's attorney, said an "army" of LA Unified
attorneys were in court on July 13 and argued in favor of
dismissing the case, but the judge denied the request.
Mr. Esquith was not present for the hearing, Mr. Meiselas said.

"I think that their lawyers convinced them, I think improperly,
that this case was not going to go to trial, but today we're one
step closer to going to trial," Mr. Meiselas said.  "It was a
really, really, really big victory in court for Rafe Esquith."

An LA Unified spokeswoman said the district plans to appeal the
ruling.

"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision," Shannon
Haber said in an email.  "As such, we intend to appeal the judge's
denial of our motion."

The lawsuit also alleges infliction of emotional distress,
retaliation and age discrimination.  Lawyers for Mr. Esquith said
the educator was hospitalized with stress-induced thrombosis.  The
suit also claims retaliation for Mr. Esquith's complaints about
teacher jail and the filing of a class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Esquith filed the class-action lawsuit against the district
about "teacher jail." In that lawsuit, Mr. Esquith claims that the
district has overseen the "unconstitutional imprisonment" of at
least 2,000 teachers in teacher jails.  His attorneys argue that
the discipline is a "shrewd cost-cutting tactic, implemented to
force its older and better-paid teachers out the door" by
terminating them or forcing them to quit thereby preventing the
teachers from receiving their pension and health-care benefits and
saving the district money.  The lawsuit describes the teacher
jails as "nondescript, fenced-in, warehouse facilities," where
teachers are prevented from speaking to each other and forced to
stare at the walls for six hours a day. The lawsuit seeks $1
billion in damages.

The district's $7.6 billion budget for this fiscal year approved
in June includes $15 million to pay salaries for teachers and
other staff "housed" in teacher jails.  The district said 181
staff members, an increase from last year, are what the district
describes as "housed," but what is more commonly known as teacher
jails, while the district conducts internal investigations.

The class-action lawsuit has recently been moved from state court
to federal court, at the request of the district, Mr. Meiselas
said, because the case cites violations of federal civil rights
laws.

The investigation into Mr. Esquith began in March 2015 after a
teacher overheard Mr. Esquith recite a passage from Mark Twain's
"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" that referred to the naked
king.  Mr. Esquith, who is known for teaching Shakespeare to his
students, said his students could recognize the passage from which
he was quoting.

In December, the district released documents to the Los Angeles
Times investigators found in their internal investigation that
claim E Mr. squith fondled two boys and a girl in the 1970s.
Investigators said Mr. Esquith's work computer contained
inappropriate pictures and videos. There were other allegations.

Mr. Esquith's attorneys have denied the allegations and called the
investigation a "witch hunt" and "specifically orchestrated to
assassinate Mr. Esquith's character."

Mr. Esquith seeks to get his job back through the lawsuit.

Last May, LA Unified reported Mr. Esquith to the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing for a formal investigation for
abuse and misconduct, but that body found the allegations to be
without merit, Mr. Esquith's attorneys said.

Mr. Esquith has written best-selling books and received numerous
accolades for innovative teaching, including Disney's National
Outstanding Teacher of the Year award, a Sigma Beta Delta
Fellowship from Johns Hopkins University, a National Medal of
Arts, and Oprah Winfrey's $100,000 "Use Your Life Award."

The next hearing in the case is scheduled in September.


LEVY & WHITE: FCDPA Class Action Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Lisa Redmond, writing for Lowell Sun, reports that a Lowell lawyer
with a reputation in small-claims court for being the nemesis of
those with unpaid debts is on the other end of a lawsuit.

A federal judge in May certified a class-action lawsuit against
attorney Robert R. White and his firm, Levy & White, over the way
he calculates the interest on debts owed. U.S. District Court
Judge Indira Talwani also granted the two local women who filed
the lawsuit -- Carol Lannan, of Lowell, and Ann Winn, of
Chelmsford -- a partial judgment in some of their claims.  The
lawsuit is pending.

In their lawsuit, the two women allege Mr. White violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices and state law while representing Trinity
Ambulance in small-claims court.

Ms. Lannan and Ms. Winn are represented by the Boston law firm of
Bailey & Glaser, the National Consumer Law Center and the
Northeast Justice Center.  Lead attorney Charles Delbaum, of the
National Consumer Law Center, declined comment while litigation is
pending.

In court papers, Mr. Delbaum argues that state law only allows the
court to award interest starting from the date of the demand for
payment, not the date of service.  Under the Uniform Small Claims
Rules (2a), interest charges should be listed separately from the
debt owed and not combined, he wrote.

"These actions harm Massachusetts consumers because they
misrepresent the amount of the alleged debts, and they subject
consumers to the collection of inflated interest amounts resulting
in inflated balances," he wrote.

Attorneys for Ms. Lannan and Ms. Winn have suggested "thousands"
of consumers per year could be impacted by the results of this
lawsuit.  Court documents submitted by Mr. White suggest about
1,289 consumers dating back to 2011.

The lawsuit does not include a proposed dollar figure, but
Ms. Lannan alleges to have suffered approximately $10 in damages
(overpayment) and Ms. Winn suffered no damages, according to court
documents.

Mr. White told The Sun that the federal judge who granted the
class-action status got it wrong and he plans to appeal.  Mr.
White, who has been practicing law for more than four decades,
said he feels confident he will be vindicated.

A mediation session between the parties did not result in an
agreement.  The case has been put on the trial list.  No date has
been scheduled.

The lawsuit also claims Mr. White incorrectly began calculating
interest on unpaid ambulance bills starting from the time the
service was provided, instead of when the bill was delinquent.

* In Ms. Lannan's case, she was transported via ambulance on
May 25, 2011.  In October 2011, she received a $700 bill that
ballooned to a $1,453 demand for payment by January 2012.  By
October 2013, the amount jumped to $1,863.

That amount included a 12 percent interest rate from a date before
Ms. Lannan received her first ambulance bill. In February 2014,
judgment for $1,994 was entered in Trinity's favor against Ms.
Lannan.

* In Ms. Winn's case, Trinity filed a small-claims complaint
against her for $2,000 in February 2014 for an ambulance trip on
May 15, 2011, for one of her children.  A short time later she
received a bill for $1,592.

Ms. Winn told Trinity that the police ordered the ambulance over
her objection.  She alleges she was told she did not have to pay.
Then she received the complaint to appear in small-claims court.


MA'DEAR HOME: Sued in Ill. Cir. Ct. Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLOWAY CARRIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MA'DEAR HOME SERVICES, INC.
(MHS) and RENEE MORRISSETIE THOMAS, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 2016-CH-08796 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 1, 2016), seeks
payment for all earned, unpaid wages from Defendants pursuant to
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA).

From the beginning of her employment until December 19, 2015,
Holloway received a paycheck from Defendants on a semi-monthly
basis. However, beginning with the December 19, 2015 pay period,
Defendants failed to pay Holloway for any of the work she
performed.

MHS provides home health services to the elderly and hospice
patients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 878 3210
          Facsimile: (312) 878 3211


MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Reaches Settlement with MH17 Victims' Families
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Malaysia Airlines has struck a deal to settle
damages claims for most victims of its MH17 flight that was shot
down over eastern Ukraine two years ago, Dutch national
broadcaster NOS has reported.

NOS cited Veeru Mewa, a lawyer representing Dutch victims.

Under the Montreal Convention, airlines must pay damages of up to
about $A189,366 to victims' families, regardless of the
circumstances of a crash.

All 298 passengers and crew, including 27 Australian nationals,
were killed when the Malaysia Airlines flight was hit, with a
report from the Dutch Safety Board saying it was brought down by a
Russian-built missile fired from an area where Russian separatists
were operating.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said -- ahead of the two-year
anniversary of the disaster -- that the federal government was
committed to ensuring families received justice.

Eight Australian families, including lead applicant Perth woman
Cassandra Gibson, whose mother Liliane Derden was among those
killed on the plane, have filed a class action against Malaysia
Airlines.

"I am very aware of the poignancy of this date and the grief it
will continue to bring for families of those who were killed in
this incident, Ms. Bishop told reporters.

"The Australian government will continue to do all we can to hold
those responsible for this atrocity to account."

The government was awaiting the findings of the joint
investigation taskforce, of which Australia is one of five
countries involved, Ms. Bishop said.

"It has been thorough, it has been done with integrity and I look
forward to reading the detail of it," she said.

"We can then determine what steps, what action we can take in the
interests of finding justice for those who were killed and for
their families."


MASTERCARD: Sainsbury's Gets Refund Following Tribunal Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Haill, writing for DigitalLook, reports that Sainsbury's
has won a GBP68.6 million refund from Mastercard after a
Competition and Appeal Tribunal ruling in London, although the
judgment left the US credit card giant feeling more optimistic
about a looming GBP19 billion UK class-action lawsuit.

MasterCard is involved in a raft of litigation over charges known
as interchange fees on the use of its credit and debit cards,
having been found by the European Commission to have abused its
dominant market position by charging the anti-competitive rates.
But Mastercard suggested the July 14 tribunal's judgment may have
boosted its defence against the class action.

The New York company highlighted the fact the court's conclusion
that a lawful level of credit interchange for the UK market would
be over 65% higher than the 30 basis points rate cap imposed in
the 2015 Interchange Fee Regulation (IFR).

"At the same time, the court criticized and rejected the 'merchant
indifference test,' the cornerstone for the IFR," Mastercard said
in a statement.

"While we are disappointed to see liability as part of the
finding, we note that in awarding a limited portion of the claimed
damages, the court concluded that Sainsbury's did not pass through
interchange costs to consumers in the form of higher prices."

The class action is being launched by former Financial Services
Ombudsman Walter Merricks, who said UK consumers "over-paid to the
tune of up to GBP19 billion during a period lasting 16 years" and
accused MasterCard of holding on to "illegal profits" it made from
the system.


MASTERS CHAMPIONS: FICA Mulls Class Action Over Unpaid Event Dues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Dobell, writing for ESPcricinfo, reports that The
Federation of International Cricketers' Association is threatening
legal action against the Masters Champions League, a T20
tournament for retired players, over non-payment of dues following
its inaugural season earlier this year.

The MCL was intended to be staged over the next two years as well,
but with FICA now threatening litigation on behalf of up to 50
players over what they term "the systematic non-payment of
players," and questioning the integrity of the tournaments
organizers, the MCL could turn out to be a one-off event.

Confirming the players' intention to sue the organizers, GM Sports
whose parent company is chaired by Zafar Shah, for unpaid fees,
Tony Irish, the executive chairman of FICA, also called for the
formation of "an an international dispute resolution body and
contract enforcement mechanism in cricket."

"It's pretty obvious the organizers of the MCL have lost
credibility," Irish told ESPNcricinfo.  "The failure to honor
contracts sends a strong message.  It is not a straightforward
process to bring legal action, but we ensured there were proper
player contracts in place and we are looking to coordinate a class
action on behalf of 40 or 50 players.

"We have given the organizers several deadlines and these have not
been met.  If they want to hold an event next year, they have a
lot of ground to make-up.  I think players will look at what
happened in the first year and draw their own conclusions.

"Despite several undertakings from Mr. Shah that outstanding
player payments would be made, under a payment plan proposed by
MCL, many players have still not received payments due to them
several months after the event.  Some players have received less
than 25% of their fee for an event that finished in February.

"It's also extremely disappointing that the event organizers have
now taken to simply ignoring attempts by FICA, players and player
agents to address the situation."

The MCL was beset with issues from the start.  Struggling to
define what constituted "retired" to the satisfaction of some Full
Members boards, some players were withdrawn from the event after
playing the initial games without No Objection Certificates.

The cricket boards of Pakistan, South Africa and West Indies, were
especially upset as they suggested the league, taking place at the
same time as their own domestic events, threated to weaken their
competitions and was attracting players who had no intention of
retiring.

While broadcast audiences were not insignificant, the rights had -
- in the vast majority of territories and on the vast majority of
platforms -- been given away for between two and three years in
order to develop interest in the tournament.  For that reason, it
raised little revenue in the first year and promises to raise
little more if held again.

Complaints from players about non-payment began as soon as they
gathered in Dubai for the first matches.  Having been promised
payment on arrival, there were various threats made to pull out of
games only for an agreement to be reached at the last minute.
ESPNcricinfo understands that some players were paid little over
10% of what they were promised, with others paid 25% and many paid
50%.

While ESPNcricinfo understands that at least three of the six
teams involved in the inaugural event did not have a clear
ownership structure -- franchise papers had not been signed --
there is little disputing who is responsible for the payments. The
terms of the player contracts state that the organizers, GM
Sports, guaranteed to underwrite all agreements.

GM Sports, a subsidiary of Grand Midwest Hotels, is owned by Zafar
Shah.  He declined to comment when contacted by ESPNcricinfo
though he has previously given assurances that all payments will
be made and that he is waiting for payment from sponsors and team
owners.  It is understood there is also an on-going attempt to
refinance the league ahead of a second season.

"We want to see an opportunity for such leagues and we want to see
more opportunities for players," Irish continued. " And that's why
we helped draw-up these contracts and put in place the anti-
corruption safeguards you would expect at major events.  We wanted
to see that everything was done properly.  So we feel the set-up
of the event was not a worry.  The problems have occurred when it
has come to payment and, under the terms of the contracts, GM are
responsible.

"Systematic breaches of professional player contracts in cricket,
such as this, are unacceptable.  The MCL was an approved cricket
event, under the jurisdiction of the Emirates Cricket Board.

"As part of the ongoing work on the global structure of the game,
we will be proposing an international dispute resolution body, and
contract enforcement mechanism in cricket.  Players, boards, clubs
and leagues would all benefit from such a mechanism."

Some suppliers complained the ICC also failed to conduct due
diligence into the event before authorising it.  While the ICC
said that it was the responsibility of the Emirates Cricket Board
to grant such authorization, they appear to be at odds with their
own criteria (Section 32 of the ICC operating manual) which
suggests that: "The ICC will decide whether or not a match or
event is approved where: the match or event is taking place in the
territory of an Associate or Affiliate Member, and does not
involve any team that is under the jurisdiction of a Full Member."

Clive Hitchcock, the ICC's senior operation manager, also appeared
to tacitly admit to having approved the tournament in an email
sent to boards in January.  In it, he stated: "Our decision not to
issue a Disapproved Notice was based on the application from MCL
which clearly stated that it was an event for retired players
only."


MAYER BROWN: Retirement System Appeals Dismissal of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System, the City of
Oakland, and The Employees' Retirement System of the City of
Montgomery appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Judgment, which granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint.

The original lawsuit is titled OAKLAND POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, THE CITY OF OAKLAND and THE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MAYER BROWN LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-
06742, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as OAKLAND POLICE AND FIRE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al. v. MAYER BROWN, LLP, Case No. 16-2983,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 6,
2016, the Hon. Robert W. Gettleman on June 22 tossed the
consolidated proposed class action in which 400 lenders accused
Mayer Brown of legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation
over a filing error in a $1.5 billion bankruptcy loan to its
client General Motors LLC.

Granting Mayer Brown's motion to dismiss with prejudice, Judge
Gettleman ruled that the Oakland Police and Fire Retirement
System, the city of Oakland and the Employees' Retirement System
of the City of Montgomery failed to state a claim because Mayer
Brown didn't owe the Plaintiffs a duty.

Plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the City of Montgomery
is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Patrick Vallely, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport East
          Two Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  pvallely@shulaw.com

Plaintiffs Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System and the City
of Oakland are represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          Kathryn Y. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Ctr., Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
                  nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  kschubert@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andy Katz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANDY KATZ
          2120 University Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 465-4400
          Facsimile: (510) 679-3277
          E-mail: andy@andykatzlaw.com

The Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          Donald L. Sawyer, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
                  dsawyer@fklmlaw.com

Plaintiff The Employees' Retirement System of the City of
Montgomery is represented by:

          Robert D. Segall, Esq.
          COPELAND FRANCO PA
          444 South Perry Street
          Montgomery, AL 36101
          Telephone: (334) 834-1180
          Facsimile: (334) 834-3172
          E-mail: segall@copelandfranco.com

               - and -

          Roy Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM PC
          4224 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 242-5642
          Facsimile: (858) 430-3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com


MDL 1917: Settlement Deals With IPPs Has Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION This Order Relates To: ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER, MDL No.
1917, Case No. C-07-5944 JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar
granted final approval of the settlement agreements between the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs and various defendants.  The
settlement agreements resolve claims against six different
corporate families.  Judge Tigar also approved the allocation of
eight different settlement funds.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's July 7, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/JY5h7b from Leagle.com.

The case is predicated upon an alleged conspiracy to price-fix
cathode ray tubes (CRTs), a core component of tube-style screens
for common devices including televisions and computer monitors.
This conspiracy ran from March 1, 1995 to November 25, 2007,
involved many of the major companies that produced CRTs, and
allegedly resulted in overcharges of millions, if not billions, of
U.S. dollars to domestic companies that purchased and sold CRTs or
finished products containing CRTs for purposes such as personal
use.  A civil suit was originally filed in 2007, consolidated by
the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation shortly thereafter,
assigned as an MDL to Judge Samuel Conti, and ultimately
transferred to Judge Tigar.

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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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.

Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by 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, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Law
Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Schultze Agency Services, 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 LLP, 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 LLP, 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., 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., Defendant,
represented byJoel 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.

Hitachi, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Douglas L. Wald.

Hitachi, Ltd., Defendant, represented by 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.

Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton.

Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by 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.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Douglas L. Wald &
Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by 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..

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Katherine Hamilton
Wheaton.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP.

Irico Group Corp., Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany,
II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., 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.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
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.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
Douglas L. Wald.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
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., Defendant, represented by William Diaz,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented
byTerry 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.

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L.
Wald.

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by 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.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented byDouglas L. Wald.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented byEthan 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.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Anton
Metlitsky.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by 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.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anton
Metlitsky.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by 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.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Douglas L.
Wald.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Eva W.
Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Gregory
Hull, Law Offices of Steven A. Ellenberg.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by 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.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by David L.
Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by 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.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas L. Wald.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by 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.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Douglas L. Wald.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by 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.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by James
Mutchnik.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented byEthan 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.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Douglas L. Wald.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
James Mutchnik.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P. & Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
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.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Douglas L. Wald
& Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by James Mutchnik,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P. & Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by 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.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Douglas L.
Wald.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by 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, ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED.

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.

Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ryan
M. Hurley.

Thomson S.A., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP,

Thomson S.A., Defendant, represented by 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.

Thomson S.A., Defendant, represented by Ryan M. Hurley.

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.

Alan Frankel, Respondent, Pro se.

Christopher Wirth, Movant, Pro Se.

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, 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, Objector, represented by Steve A. Miller, Steve A.
Miller, P.C..

Laura Fortman, 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, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

John R. Stoebner, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

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

Commonwealth 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.


MEADOWS CONSTRUCTION: "Ribeiro" Suit Seeks Treble Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Juliano Ribeiro and Antonio da Silva, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Meadows
Construction Company LLC and Michael Meadows, the Defendants, Case
No. 16-897 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 1, 2016), seeks treble damages,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them the
applicable prevailing wage for public works construction that
Plaintiffs performed. Additionally, Plaintiffs alleged that they
were not paid one and a half times their regular rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of
Massachusetts overtime law. Finally, Defendants' violations of the
Massachusetts prevailing wage and overtime law is a per se
violation of the weekly wage act which requires employers to
timely pay employees all wages earned for work performed.

Meadows Construction is a general contractor company for
residential and commercial construction since 1978.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Tully
          JUSTICE AT WORK
          192 South Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (857) 237 0984
          E-mail: etully@jatwork.org

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  tfowler@llrlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Orozco" Suit in N.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc.
The case is captioned Michael Orozco, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01999-G (N.D.
Tex., July 8, 2016). The assigned Senior Judge is Hon. A. Joe
Fish.

Midland Credit is a national financial services company that helps
consumers resolve past-due financial obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walt D Roper, Esq.
          THE ROPER FIRM PC
          3001 Knox Street, Suite 405
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (214) 420 4520
          Facsimile: (214) 856 8480
          E-mail: walt@roperfirm.com


MIDWEST POULTRY: Direct Purchasers' Settlement Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
No. 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa.), District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter
granted Final Approval of the Class Action Settlements between the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and defendants Midwest Poultry
Services, LP (MPS), National Food Corporation (NFC), United Egg
Producers (UEP), and United States Egg Marketers (USEM).

The court held that the Settlement Class satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment under Rules 23(a) and (b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Settlement
Agreements are sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate. Notice
of the Settlement Agreements to the Settlement Class has been
given in an adequate and sufficient manner.

For settlement purposes, Members of the Settlement Class include
all persons and entities that purchased Shell Eggs and Egg
Products in the United States directly from any Producer,
including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1,
2000 through the date on which the Court enters an order
preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for
Settlement purposes.

Settlement Class is divided into two Sub-classes as follows:

     Shell Egg Subclass refers to all individuals and entities
that purchased Shell Eggs in the United States directly from any
Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from
January 1, 2000 through the date on which the Court enters an
order preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class
for Settlement purposes; and,

     Egg Products Subclass refers to all individuals and entities
that purchased Egg Products produced from Shell Eggs in the United
States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during
the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through the date on which
the Court enters an order preliminarily approving the Agreement
and certifying a Class for Settlement purposes.

The court added that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shall
retain jurisdiction over the implementation, enforcement, and
performance of the Settlement Agreements, and shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over any suit, action, motion, proceeding, or dispute
arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreements or the
applicability of the Settlement Agreements that cannot be resolved
by negotiation and agreement by Plaintiffs and MPS, NFC, UEP, or
USEM.

A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/ohTLiCfrom Leagle.com.

In re PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, represented by
JAN P. LEVINE -- levinej@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.

SANDRA A. JESKIE, Special Master, represented by SANDRA A. JESKIE
-- Jeskie@duanemorris.com -- DUANE, MORRIS LLP.


MILLE LACS, MN: Settles Data Snooping Class Action for $1MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hage, writing for Mille Lacs County Times, reports that Mille
Lacs County and a former child support investigator for its
Department of Family Services have agreed to a $1 million payment
to settle a potential class action lawsuit alleging the
unauthorized access to driver's license data of about 270 people.

Legal counsel for the county and former county employee
Mikki Jo Peterick agreed to the settlement terms on Friday,
July 1.  Judge John R. Tunheim, presiding over the case in U.S.
Federal Court, indicated during a Monday, July 11 hearing that he
would issue an order preliminarily approving the
agreement,according to attorney Susan Tindal of the Iverson
Reuvers & Condon law firm, which is representing the county.

A civil suit alleging civil rights violations filed in May 2013
alleges that Ms. Peterick used a computer to access driver's
license data from the Minnesota Department of Motor Vehicles for
her own personal use.  The potential lawsuit alleges that the
county failed to put into place systems or procedures to ensure
that private data would be protected and not subject to misuse.
Mille Lacs County Administrator Pat Oman directed inquiries on the
matter to Attorney Tindal.  Ms. Tindal said that as part of the
settlement, the county was not admitting liability.
"This was an economic decision," Ms. Tindal said.  Ms. Peterick
does not disclose in a proposed settlement agreement why she
allegedly accessed the data.

Ms. Peterick, who resigned from her job as a child support officer
in April of 2012, is accused of accessing records of 269
individuals for purposes not permitted under the Drivers Privacy
Protection Act, according to court records.  She allegedly
accessed data of some individuals on multiple occasions, resulting
in a total of 605 unauthorized queries.  The number of offenses
was determined as a result of an audit conducted by Mille Lacs
County, court documents state.

The data potentially gave Ms. Peterick access to names, dates of
birth, driver's license numbers, address, driver's license photos,
weight, height and eye color of the potential victims, court
records state.

The initial complaint was initiated by Candace Gulsvig, Mel
Gulsvig and John Schmoll.  The Mille Lacs County Board met in
closed session on Sept. 1, 2015, to discuss the matter with its
legal counsel.  A motion presented to the court on Friday, July 1,
described a proposed settlement agreement, called for certifying
those allegedly violated by Ms. Peterick as members of a class as
it pertains to a class action, and appointed the Gulsvigs and
Schmoll as representatives of the class.  It also proposed the
appointment of Sieben Carey P.A. and the Sapientia Law Group as
class counsel and laid out how class members would be notified of
the proposed settlement agreement.

In March 2012, the Minnesota Department of Human Services sent
about 269 data practice violation notices to individuals whose
personal information had been allegedly obtained by Ms. Peterick
for purposes not permitted by the Drivers Privacy Protection Act,
according to court records.  While Ms. Peterick had access to
driver's license and vehicle data through the DMV for work
purposes, a large number of data searches between January 2009 and
November 2012 could not be associated with any of the county's
family services cases or investigations, court records state.

The letter sent to the victims of the data searches included an
apology letter from Robert Cornelius, then the community and
veteran services director, and stated that Ms. Peterick was no
longer employed by the county (she resigned in April 2012).
The letter also included information from a Milaca Police
Department investigation that concluded that Ms. Peterick had
frequently obtained driver's license data for purposes not
permitted.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Mille Lacs
County and Ms. Peterick have agreed that in exchange for release
and dismissals of the proposed class action lawsuit:

   -- Peterick and the county, or its insurance provider,
Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, will pay $1 million to
the Gulvigs, Schmoll and the almost 270 members of the class as
damages.

   -- $100,000 of the $1 million settlement will be set aside for
people who might opt out of the class action.

   -- Attorneys fees will be paid from the $1 million.

   -- The Gulvigs and Schmoll will receive $25,000 as an incentive
for being the class representatives.

After payment of the fees associated with the case, the remainder
of the $1 million settlement will be distributed to the 269 class
members based on how many times their records were illegitimately
searched, court records state.


MISSOURI: Court to Grant Settlement Deal in "Orden" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN VAN ORDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KEITH
SCHAFER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:09CV00971 AGF (E.D. Mo.),
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig held that he will grant the parties'
joint motion to approve and direct notice to the certified class
of the proposed settlement, and will schedule a fairness hearing
on the proposed settlement, but only after the parties shall have
conferred and attempted to reach agreement with respect to any
changes to the proposed class notice that may be necessary.

Judge Fleissig also appointed John H. Quinn, III as counsel to
represent the class representatives who object to the proposed
settlement and any other class members who object to the proposed
settlement and wish to be represented by Mr. Quinn.

Lastly, Judge Fleissig denied without prejudice Eric Selig's oral
motion to withdraw as lead counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Fleissig's July 7, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/UvNtSC from Leagle.com.

John R. Van Orden, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole -- dotoole@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM AND SCHWARTZ, John H. Quinn, III,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Scott K.G. Kozak --
skozak@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Andrew J.
McNulty, ACLU OF MISSOURI, Christopher LaRose --
clarose@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Gillian
R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M.
Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION &
Susan S. Kister -- skister@kisterlaw.com -- SUSAN SHERBERG KISTER,
ATTORNEY AT LAW.

Michael D. McCord, Joseph Miller, Macon Baker, David Brown,
Richard Tyson, Matthew King, Andre Cokes, Plaintiffs, represented
by Anthony E. Rothert, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI
FOUNDATION, Daniel K. O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Eric M.
Selig, ROSENBLUM AND SCHWARTZ, James G. Martin --
jmartin@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP, John H. Quinn, III,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Scott K.G. Kozak, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,
Susan S. Kister, SUSAN SHERBERG KISTER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Andrew J.
McNulty, ACLU OF MISSOURI, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP,Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI
& Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI
FOUNDATION.

Chance Tyree, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM AND
SCHWARTZ & James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT, LLP.

Chance Tyree, John H. Quinn, III, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Scott
K.G. Kozak, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Susan S. Kister, SUSAN
SHERBERG KISTER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Andrew J. McNulty, ACLU OF
MISSOURI,Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Gillian R.
Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI & Jessie M.
Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION.

Walter W. Ritchey, Anthony E. Rothert, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K. O'Toole, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM AND SCHWARTZ, James G.
Martin, DOWD BENNETT, LLP, John H. Quinn, III, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Scott K.G. Kozak, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Susan S. Kister,
SUSAN SHERBERG KISTER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Andrew J. McNulty, ACLU OF
MISSOURI,Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Gillian R.
Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI & Jessie M.
Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION.

Anthony Amonette, Anthony E. Rothert, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K. O'Toole, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM AND SCHWARTZ, James G.
Martin, DOWD BENNETT, LLP, John H. Quinn, III, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Scott K.G. Kozak, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Susan S. Kister,
SUSAN SHERBERG KISTER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Andrew J. McNulty, ACLU OF
MISSOURI,Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Gillian R.
Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI & Jessie M.
Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION.

Wade A. Turpin, Anthony E. Rothert, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K. O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP,Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM AND SCHWARTZ, James G. Martin, DOWD
BENNETT, LLP, John H. Quinn, III, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Scott
K.G. Kozak, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Susan S. Kister, SUSAN
SHERBERG KISTER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Andrew J. McNulty, ACLU OF
MISSOURI,Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Gillian R.
Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI & Jessie M.
Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION.

Joseph Bowen, William Murphy, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony
E. Rothert, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION,
Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM AND SCHWARTZ, John H. Quinn, III,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Scott K.G. Kozak, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,
Susan S. Kister, SUSAN SHERBERG KISTER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Andrew J.
McNulty, ACLU OF MISSOURI & Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION.

Harold Myers, Alan Blake, Keith Schaefer, Melissa Ring, Mark
Stringer, Julie Inman, Jay Englehart, Justin Arnett, Rick Gowdy,
Joseph Parks, M.D., Robert Reitz, Linda Moll, Daman Longworth,
Donna Augustine, Dave Schmitt, Marty Martin-Forman, Ian Fluger,
Sherry Lee, Ericka L. Kempker, Kristina Bender-Crice, Defendants,
represented by Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI &
Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

George Lombardi, Defendant, represented by Katherine S. Walsh,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Approves $75MM Concussion Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that a federal
judge on July 14 granted preliminary approval to a $75 million
settlement of a class-action concussions case against the NCAA.

The money is to be used to set up a 50-year, $70 million medical
monitoring program for college athletes and a new $5 million
program "to research the prevention, treatment, and/or effects of
concussions."

The medical monitoring program, according to documents filed
earlier in the case, "will make medical screening and Medical
Evaluations available to all current and former NCAA student-
athletes -- regardless of when they played, what sport they
played, for how long they played, in which state they played or
reside, or their age."

The settlement also includes a series of provisions related to
return-to-play guidelines, the prospect of academic accommodations
for athletes who suffer concussions and concussion education and
training for athletes, coaches and athletic trainers.  One of
these provisions mandates pre-season baseline testing for every
athlete at every NCAA school for each sport in which they
participate.

Another states that any athlete who is diagnosed with a concussion
"by medical personnel must be cleared by a physician before being
permitted to return to play in practice or competition."

In addition, schools in all three of the NCAA's competitive
divisions must assure that "medical personnel with training in the
diagnosis, treatment and management of concussion" are present at
games involving contact sports.

The decision by U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee was announced in a
brief entry into the case's record by the court clerk's office
after hearing in Chicago.

But the settlement does not end all concussion litigation pending
against the NCAA and schools.  The settlement contains language
that will allow a separate series of recently filed personal-
injury lawsuits to go forward against the association and a group
of schools and conferences.

Those cases were filed in a variety of courts around the country.
However, at the NCAA's request, a federal court charged with
helping to manage similar cases that have been filed in multiple
courts recently handed all of these cases to the district court in
which Lee presides.  It is likely that he will assigned the cases
for pre-trial purposes.

In the meantime, the NCAA said it was happy with Judge Lee's
ruling on July 14.

"We are pleased the settlement is moving toward final approval,"
chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement.  "Student-
athlete well-being has always been our priority and we have
preliminary approval for a pathway that provides medical
monitoring of current and former student-athletes who may have
developed sport-related concussion."

The July 14 ruling covers a series of cases that began with one
filed on behalf of former Eastern Illinois football player
Adrian Arrington.  It ended up covering athletes in contact and
non-contact sports.

"This is a historic settlement that will provide certainty, safety
and measurable guidelines of player health to an estimated 4.4
million current and former student-athletes," Steve Berman, a lead
attorney for the plaintiffs, said in statement issued through his
firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  "We are pleased with the
court's decision and the changes this litigation will bring to
make college sports a safer environment and to hold NCAA-
affiliated schools responsible for the potentially life-altering
effects of concussions."

Attorneys' fees and costs for the plaintiffs' lawyers will be
determined by Lee and come from the $70 million medical monitoring
funds.  The NCAA has agreed not to oppose an application for a fee
award of up $15 million and expense award of up to $750,000.  The
plaintiffs' lawyers have agreed to work to implement the terms of
the settlement over its lifetime, and will be able to obtain
additional compensation for that work from the medical monitoring
fund.

A website with details of the settlement is to be established by
July 21, and before the end of the month, the NCAA is to begin
making public notices about the settlement and a call center aimed
at assisting athletes is to set up.

As for the new cases, they were filed by an array of law firms but
are being led by a Chicago-based practice also representing
objectors to the $75 million settlement.  The new cases, styled on
recent NFL concussion litigation, seek unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages payments.

The lead plaintiffs' attorney in the new cases, Jay Edelson, told
USA TODAY Sports via e-mail that at the July 14 hearing he
informed Lee that "we still have dozens more of these cases to
file."


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Wash. High Court Weighs in on "Jordan" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON IN LAURA
ZAMORA JORDAN, as her separate estate, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, No. 92081-8
(Wash.), the Supreme Court of Washington answered in the negative
two questions of Washington law that were certified to it by the
district court.

The district court certified the following questions to the
Supreme Court:

          1. Under Washington's lien theory of mortgages and RCW
             7.28.230(1), can a borrower and lender enter into a
             contractual agreement prior to default that allows
             the lender to enter, maintain, and secure the
             encumbered property prior to foreclosure?

          2. Does chapter 7.60 RCW, Washington's statutory
             receivership scheme, provide the exclusive remedy,
             absent postdefault consent by the borrower, for a
             lender to gain access to an encumbered property
             prior to foreclosure?

The Supreme Court answered the first question in the negative, and
held that "Washington law prohibits lenders from taking possession
of property prior to foreclosure.  These entry provisions enable
the lender to take possession after default, and the lender's
action here constitutes taking possession.  Therefore, the entry
provisions are in direct conflict with state law and are
unenforceable."

The Supreme Court also answered the second question in the
negative.  "The text of the receivership statutes, the legislative
intent behind them, and public policy considerations compel us to
find that chapter 7.60 RCW is not the exclusive remedy for lenders
to gain access to a borrower's property," the Supreme Court
explained.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's July 7, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/aikAYq from Leagle.com.

In April 2012, Laura Jordan filed a complaint against Nationstar
Mortgage LLC in Chelan County Superior Court, alleging state law
claims that include trespass, breach of contract, and violations
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  Chelan County Superior Court certified
the class action, with Jordan as the representative for the 3,600
Washington homeowners who were locked out of their homes pursuant
to certain provisions in their deeds of trust with Nationstar.
Nationstar removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Clay M. Gatens, Esq.
          JDSA
          2600 Chester Kimm Rd
          Wenatchee, WA, 98801-8116
          E-mail: clayg@jdsalaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Duane Daudt, Esq.
          Daudt Law PLLC
          2200 6th Ave Ste 1250
          Seattle, WA, 98121-1820

               - and -

          Michelle A. Green, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          2600 Chester Kimm Rd, PO Box 1688
          Wenatchee, WA, 98801-8116
          E-mail: michelleg@jdsalaw.com

               - and -

          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC
          936 N. 34th St Ste 300
          Seattle, WA, 98103-8869
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
          Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
          936 N. 34th St Ste 300
          Seattle, WA, 98103-8869
          E-mail: bchandler@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Honea Lee Iv Lewis, Esq.
          Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn & Aylward, P.S.
          2600 Chester Kimm Rd, Po Box 1688
          Wenatchee, WA, 98801-8116
          E-mail: leel@jdsalaw.com

Counsel for Defendants:

          John Alan Knox, Esq.
          William Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC
          601 Union St Ste 4100
          Seattle, WA, 98101-1368
          E-mail: jknox@williamskastner.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Noble, Esq.
          Severson & Werson, APC
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA, 94111
          E-mail: awn@severson.com

               - and -

          Jan T. Chilton, Esq.
          Severson & Werson, PC
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA, 94111
          E-mail: jtc@severson.com

               - and -

          Mary Kate Sullivan, Esq.
          Severson & Werson PC
          One Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA, 94111
          E-mail: mks@severson.com

               - and -

          Erik Kemp, Esq.
          Severson & Werson PC
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA, 94111
          E-mail: ek@severson.com

Amicus Curiae on behalf of City of Spokane:

          Nancy Dykes Isserlis
          City of Spokane
          Office Of The City Attorney
          808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd Fl 5
          Spokane, WA, 99201-3333

               - and -

          Nathaniel Odle
          Office of the Spokane City Attorney
          808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd
          Spokane, WA, 99201-3333

               - and -

          David P. Gardner, Esq.
          Winston & Cashatt
          601 W. Riverside Ave Ste 1900
          Spokane, WA, 99201-0695

Amicus Curiae on behalf of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Coporation:

          Abraham K. Lorber, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          Po Box 91302
          1420 5th Ave Ste 4200
          Seattle, WA, 98111-9402
          E-mail: lorbera@lanepowell.com

               - and -

          John Sterling Devlin III, Esq.
          Lane Powell PC
          Po Box 91302
          1420 5th Ave Ste 4200
          Seattle, WA, 98111-9402
          E-mail: devlinj@lanepowell.com

Amicus Curiae on behalf of Northwest Consumer Law Center:

          Sheila M. O'Sullivan, Esq.
          Northwest Consumer Law Center
          520 E. Denny Way
          Seattle, WA, 98122-2138

               - and -

          Erin Lane, Esq.
          Northwest Consumer Law Center
          520 E. Denny Way
          Seattle, WA, 98122-2138


NEW YORK: Group Gets Unfavorable Ruling in Library Sale Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
plaintiffs who sought to challenge the sale of the Brooklyn
Heights branch of the Brooklyn Public Library did not serve the
defendants with notice in a timely manner, a judge ruled in
throwing out the challenge.

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Dawn Jimenez-Salta also rejected
the plaintiffs' allegations that New York City failed to conduct a
proper environmental review of the project because it did not
consider the effects of redeveloping the site on traffic,
architecture and shadows.

On Dec. 16, 2015, the City Council approved the sale of property
at 280 Cadman Plaza West, where developer Cadman Associates LLC
plans to replace the two-story library branch at the site with a
36-story mixed use building that will include new library space.

On April 15, a group of residents living near the site and a group
called Love Brooklyn Libraries Inc. filed a petition challenging
the sale, alleging that the city did not comply with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.

On July 7, Justice Jimenez-Salta ruled that challenging a
government action under the review act must be resolved in Article
78 proceeding, which has a four-month statute of limitation.  The
plaintiffs filed their petition one day before the expiration of
the statute, but did not serve any of the defendants before the
15-day deadline.

The defendants have invested "considerable resources" in the
project, Justice Jimenez-Salta said, and are thus "prejudiced by
the lingering specter of litigation" extending past the applicable
limitations.

Additionally, the judge said, the environmental review of the
project was "thorough and comprehensive" and that it took a "hard
look" at environmental areas of concern.  Amy McCamphill of the
city's Law Department appeared for the city.

The plaintiffs were represented by Richard Lippes, a partner at
Lippes & Lippes.  He said the group plans to appeal Justice
Jimenez-Salta's decision.

The case is Rimler v. City of New York, 506046/16.


NIANTIC INC: Senator Raises Pokemon Go User Data Privacy Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for Law.com, reports that a U.S. senator
with a history of probing tech privacy issues has asked the
creator of the wildly popular Pokemon Go to detail what the
company does with an array of information the mobile app collects
from users' phones.

In a letter sent on July 12 to Niantic Inc. chief executive John
Hanke, U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota, questioned whether the
"augmented reality" app developer has appropriately asked for
consumers' permission to access their locations, their general
profile data and, in some cases, their Google accounts.

"When done appropriately, the collection and use of personal
information may enhance consumers' augmented reality experience,
but we must ensure that Americans' -- especially children's 00
very sensitive information is protected," Mr. Franken wrote.

A Niantic representative did not address the senator's letter
directly but pointed to a statement on July 11 that said the San
Francisco-based company was working on fixing an "erroneous"
request by the app for full access to a user's Google account.

"Pokemon GO only accesses basic Google profile information
(specifically, your User ID and email address) and no other Google
account information is or has been accessed or collected," the
statement said.

Since its release on July 6, Pokemon Go has sent hordes of
players, eyes glued to smartphone screens, scouring public sites
to "catch" virtual characters, to "fight" rivals in virtual arenas
called gyms and to collect related items in a game that mixes
fantasy with GPS-based reality.  Nintendo Co., which owns part of
Niantic, saw its value skyrocket by $7.5 billion since the app
launched this month, according to media accounts.

But tech watchers and privacy advocates soon began scrutinizing
the amount of user information the app was gathering.  Citing
those concerns, Sen. Franken asked Mr. Hanke and his company to
respond to six questions, including whether Niantic would consider
making the app's data collection an opt-in process for users
instead of an opt-out selection.  The senator also sought details
on how Niantic tells parents how their children's information is
being used.

Franken has previously pressed other tech companies, including
Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and Apple Inc., with questions
about privacy and data security practices.


NIANTIC LABS: Pokemon Go-Related Injuries May Spur Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blasting News reports that the makers of Pokemon Go may be looking
at a class action lawsuit somewhere down the line as more and more
people suffer injuries while playing the game.  There is always a
possibility of someone putting a Pokemon Go lawsuit together, but
whether or not it will hold water is up to the courts.  The latest
injuries include two men falling off cliffs and a 15-year-old girl
being hit by a car as these die-hard Pokemon Go players are simply
not watching where they are going.

Fox News' show Happening Now discussed the possibility of someone
filing a class action lawsuit as these injuries seem to surface
daily while this game has been downloaded by millions of people
since it went live as an app on July 6.  The people behind the
Pokemon Go game, Niantic Labs, offer the disclaimer on their
website, which is the same one that appears on the screen before
you can even play the game.  It is long and full of legal jargon,
but it offers warnings such as;

"During game play, please be aware of your surroundings and play
safely.  You agree that your use of the App and play of the game
is at your own risk, and it is your responsibility to maintain
such health, liability, hazard, personal injury, medical, life,
and other insurance policies as you deem reasonably necessary for
any injuries that you may incur while using the Services."  It
goes on and on and on, pretty much covering most any scenario, but
what about the person who is injured because someone else was in
the thralls of this game and bumps or crashes into them?

Disclaimer enough?
That's a slippery slope, suggests Fox News live, considering that
the injuries from this game are mounting and the people who
created Pokemon Go have to be more than aware of them by now. Does
this disclaimer cover someone hit by a car when the driver is
playing Pokemon Go, or a person who trips someone up on the
sidewalk walking into them while playing the game?

That's a bit of a gray area, but as these injuries keep adding up,
someone is bound to attempt to find this out! This game is very
new and very much all the craze today.  Besides people getting
hurt from not paying attention to their surroundings, the game-
playing has also left nine people victims of armed robberies.
Criminals in Missouri were using the game to lure folks to
desolate areas where they robbed them at gunpoint. Police have
arrested the foursome.

Teen hit by car blames the game
Local ABC News reports the mother of the 15-year-old Pennsylvania
girl who was hit by a car while playing Pokemon Go is putting the
blame on the game for taking her daughter across a busy Tarentum
highway during the evening rush hour.  The person who hit her
daughter stayed with her and held her hand until the paramedics
arrived and transported her to a local hospital.  She remains in
the hospital in stable condition. Her picture is seen above.

The California ocean cliffs offer beautiful scenery and apparently
they are also one of the millions of destinations for the Pokemon
Go app.  Two men were going after all that Pokemon had to offer in
Encinitas, which is beach community near San Diego, when they went
too far.  Local news reports the men wandered off a cliff trying
to 'catch them all'.

One guy fell 80-feet to the beach below and the other man fell 50-
feet off a cliff.  Neither of the two were paying attention to
their surroundings because the were so distracted playing the
Pokemon Go game.  It seems that they didn't realize they ran out
of ground beneath their feet.  Both men were transported to a
local trauma center and the extent of their injuries is unknown at
this time.


NIANTIC LABS: Terms of Service Waives Legal Rights to Sue
---------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Lomas, writing for TechCrunch, reports that players of
Pokemon Go are not only giving up their right to act like sane
human beings in public, as they walk around, zombie-esque,
reaching into the phones held in front of their faces, they are
also likely to be waiving legal rights if they don't take a very
close look at Niantic Labs' Terms of Service for the game.

As spotted earlier by The Consumerist, an arbitration notice
states that Pokemon Go users automatically agree to waive their
rights to any future trial by jury or class action lawsuit unless
they opt out of a binding clause in the T&Cs . . .

ARBITRATION NOTICE: EXCEPT IF YOU OPT OUT AND EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN
TYPES OF DISPUTES DESCRIBED IN THE "AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE"
SECTION BELOW, YOU AGREE THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND NIANTIC
WILL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING, INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION, AND YOU ARE
WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OR TO PARTICIPATE AS A
PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS ACTION OR
REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING.

To opt out of the legal rights waiver, users need to email
termsofservice@nianticlabs.com or can send regular mail to 2
Bryant St., Ste. 220, San Francisco, CA 94105.

But the opt out process is only valid if exercised within 30 days
following the date a user first accepted the T&Cs.

Having a short opt-out window for legal rights embedded within
T&Cs which the vast majority of users won't read before clicking
'I agree' and rushing into their neighbor's garden to try to catch
a pikachu is a very aggressive stance.

Binding arbitration means a private dispute resolution process,
heard outside a courtroom, with individual users having to mount
their own cases -- rather than having the ability to band together
in a class action, for example, if there is a data breach which
affects multiple users in the same way.

Only individual actions brought to small claims courts and actions
seeking injunctive or equitable relief pertaining to IP
infringement rights are unaffected.

The rules under which any arbitration would take place are
specified as those of the American Arbitration Association -- "in
accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules and the
Supplementary Procedures for Consumer Related Disputes", albeit
with some Niantic specific modifications. Safe to say, private
arbitration is a restrictive route for redress that clearly
disadvantages consumers.

As previously noted, Pokemon Go also requires extensive app
permissions to run.  And the Pokemon Go privacy policy states the
company may share aggregated data with third parties, and
identifiable user data with law enforcement agencies and other
parties for a range of reasons it deems appropriate.

The privacy policy further notes that in the event of a sale of
Niantic users would need to opt out of having their data
disclosed/transferred to the third party acquirer -- again with
only a 30 day window to do so:

"Information that we collect from our users, including PII
[personally identifiable information], is considered to be a
business asset.  Thus, if we are acquired by a third party as a
result of a transaction such as a merger, acquisition, or asset
sale or if our assets are acquired by a third party in the event
we go out of business or enter bankruptcy, some or all of our
assets, including your (or your authorized child's) PII, may be
disclosed or transferred to a third party acquirer in connection
with the transaction.  In the event of such a transaction, we will
give you notice of the transaction and the opportunity for a
period of 30 days to refuse disclosure or transfer of your (or
your authorized child's) PII to the third party acquirer in
connection with the transaction."


NYK: Pleads Guilty to Criminal Cartel Conduct
---------------------------------------------
ATN reports that ongoing global action against international
vehicle transport operators for price fixing has surfaced here.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) reports
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK) pleaded guilty on July 18 in
the Federal Court to criminal cartel conduct.

Roll-on roll-off ship operators have fallen foul of competition
authorities since 2012, when the European Commission and the Japan
Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) tackled NYK, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
(K-Line), Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL) and its subsidiary, Nissan Motor
Car Carrier Co (NMCC), along with Norwegian firm Wallenius
Wilhelmsen Logistics (WWL) for 2008-2012 price fixing.

US class action claimants opened proceedings the following year.

Since then Compania Sud Americana de Vapores (CSAV), Hoegh
Autoliners, and Eukor Car Carriers have also been prosecuted in
countries as diverse as Chile and South Africa last year and
Brazil this year.

This is the first criminal charge laid against a corporation under
the criminal cartel provisions of the Competition and Consumer
Act," ACCC Chairman Rod Sims says.

The Australian charge was laid by the Commonwealth Director of
Public Prosecutions (CDPP) under section 44ZZRG of the Competition
and Consumer Act 2010 on July 14.

An ACCC spokesperson would not be drawn on what other charges
related to this case are pending against whom, though the ACCC
says its investigation into "other alleged cartel participants is
continuing".

For corporations, the maximum fine for each criminal cartel
offence will be the greater of:

   -- $10 million
   -- three times the total benefits that have been obtained and
are reasonably attributable to the commission of the offence
   -- if the total value of the benefits cannot be determined, 10
per cent of the corporation's annual turnover connected with
Australia.

The matter is scheduled for a directions hearing in the Federal
Court on September 12.

"Given this is a criminal matter currently before the Court, the
ACCC will not provide any further comment at this time," the ACCC
says.

In the US, the Department of Justice (DOJ) imposed $136 million
(A$179 million) in fines against K-Line (US$67.7 million), NYK
(US$59.4 million) and CSAV (US$8.9 million).

In Japan in 2014, K-Line was fined  5.7 billion (A$71 million),
WWL JPY3.5 billion and NMCC JPY423 million.


PALOS VERDES, CA: To Dismantle Lunada Bay Boys' Stone Fort
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Nazaryan, writing for Newsweek, reports that Lunada Bay
is a near-perfect half-circle in the Pacific coastline of Palos
Verdes Estates, an upper-middle-class enclave of Los Angeles.  The
land drops steeply to the water, the cliffs immediately evocative
of California at its most gorgeous and dramatic.  The waves at
Lunada Bay can reach 15 to 20 feet, making it one of the premier
surfing spots on the entire West Coast.

It is also, however, one of the least accessible.

The struggle over coastal rights here offers a view into surfing's
unseemly, decidedly un-chill side.  In particular, the question of
who gets to surf Lunada Bay highlights the hostility to outsiders
known as localism, which clashes with the notion that California's
beaches are a public resource to be shared by all.

For nearly the past half-century, a group of local surfers known
as the Bay Boys have jealously protected access to the waves of
Lunada Bay with verbal abuse, threats and vandalism, sometimes
resorting to violence.  Their goal has been unwavering: to keep
outsiders from surfing there.  The Bay Boys have been abetted in
this task, some charge, by Palos Verdes Estates authorities
willing to tolerate their behavior.

The Bay Boys' reign, though, may be coming to an end, with the
California Coastal Commission telling Palos Verdes Estates, in a
letter sent in June, to either dismantle the cliff-side stone fort
the Bay Boys use as their base or bring the makeshift structure up
to code while also adding "public access amenities" that would
make the beach easier to reach.  Palos Verdes Estates officials
indicated that they would have the fort torn down, despite
opposition from some locals.

The destruction of the fort will deprive the Bay Boys of a crucial
stronghold they've used for some 30 years to keep outsiders away.
According to the Los Angeles Times, "Witnesses accuse the Bay Boys
surfer gang of congregating at the three-decade-old structure and
bombarding outsiders with dirt clods, slashing their tires and
assaulting them in the water -- sometimes coordinating the attacks
with walkie-talkies."  The fort is also believed to have been used
by the Bay Boys for drinking and using drugs.

The Bay Boys are, as far as it is possible to tell, mostly middle-
aged and white, and both factors have likely worked in their
favor.  A recent class-action lawsuit, however, sought to use a
gang injunction to break their grip on Lunada Bay.

The Bay Boys are the nation's most notorious surf gang, but other
surfers have resorted to similar aggressions to keep away
interlopers.  In a list of the world's "most fiercely protected
local breaks," GrindTV included -- along with Lunada Bay --
Hawaii's famous Banzai Pipeline and Mundaka, in Spain, protected
by "a fierce pack of talented local Basque surfers."

Such localism has perhaps arisen because, as surfing's popularity
grows, veteran surfers see younger practitioners as interlopers
who have no business intruding on their beloved breaks: Nobody
likes a stranger in his garden.  Moreover, while it's easy enough
to create rules around sharing a tennis court, the same is much
harder to do in open were, where clear boundaries do not exist and
the sought-after resource -- a surfable wave -- is impossible to
predict and fairly allocate.

"When too many randoms paddle out, things get tense,"
Lewis Samuels wrote in a 2013 defense of localism for Surfer
magazine. "Otherwise it's a gentlemanly little arena.  Comrades
enjoy productive working sessions, splitting limited resources not
equally but at least in a consistent manner.  When locals burn
each other and collide, it's on purpose, and all in good fun.  The
system has its merits."

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the Bay Boys is how long
they have operated with impunity, convinced that the beach at
Lunada Bay was their birthright, one they could defend as they saw
fit.  It was inevitable, though, that public outrage would drive
them off the beach.  As one of the lawyers who brought the suit
against the Bay Boys told The New York Times, "In California, the
ocean belongs to the public, not to a bunch of trust-fund babies."


PARIS BAGUETTE: 2nd Cir. Returns Actions to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, remanded the
following cases: (1) DEVORAH CRUPER-WEINMANN, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
PARIS BAGUETTE AMERICA, INC., doing business as Paris Baguette,
Defendant-Appellee, and (2) YEHUDA KATZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
THE DONNA KARAN COMPANY LLC, THE DONNA KARAN COMPANY STORE LLC,
DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 14-
3709-cv, 15-464-cv (2nd Cir.), to the Southern District of New
York for further proceedings after the court granted appellants
the opportunity to particularize their allegations.

Both "Weinmann" and "Katz" actions alleges that their
corresponding defendants violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by issuing a receipt with the full expiration
date of the credit card printed on it and listing the first six
and final four digits of the credit card number, respectively.

The Second Circuit effected the doctrine in the case captioned,
"Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016)", where plaintiffs
must plead to adequately allege a concrete injury. The order for
appellants to replead is within the trial court's power to allow
or to require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the
complaint or by affidavits, further particularized allegations of
fact deemed supportive of plaintiff's standing. If, after the
given opportunity, the plaintiff's standing does not adequately
appear from all materials of record, the complaint will be
dismissed, the Second Circuit said.

The Second Circuit noted that from whatever final decision the
district courts make, its jurisdiction to consider a subsequent
appeal may be invoked by any party by notification to the Clerk of
the Court within ten days of the district courts' decision, in
which event the renewed appeal will be assigned to the panel.

A copy of the Second Circuit's order dated June 30, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/BP0nCufrom Leagle.com.

Paris Baguette America Inc. Joshua A. Berman --
joshua.berman@troutmansanders.com -- (Mary Jane Yoon, on the
brief), Troutman Sanders LLP, New York, NY. Appearing for
Appellee.

The Donna Karan Company, LLC, The Donna Karan Company Store, LLC,
Donna Karan International, Inc.: Gregg M. Mashberg --
gmashberg@proskauer.com -- (David A. Munkittrick, Charles S. Sims,
on the brief), Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY. Appearing for
Appellees.


PEARLS: Australian Gov't Blocks Sale of Sheraton Mirage Resort
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Klan, writing for The Australian, reports that the
Queensland government has issued a caveat temporarily blocking the
sale of the $100 million-plus Gold Coast Sheraton Mirage resort to
help class action lawyers seeking to take control of it in the
interests of Indian investors.

In 2009, before its collapse, India's $10 billion failed Pearls
Ponzi scheme brought more than $100m of the scheme's money to
Australia, buying the Sheraton Mirage and a $5m waterfront home at
Sanctuary Cove.

Barrister Niall Coburn, a former investigator with the Australian
Securities & Investments Commission who is running the class
action with Shine Lawyers, said the Queensland government
registrar of titles had lodged a caveat that would be in place
until after a key legal hearing.

On July 19, the Federal Court in Brisbane was set to decide
whether or not to grant a longer-term caveat over the properties,
which would further prevent their sale and allow the class action
to proceed.

Mr. Coburn and Shine lawyers had earlier lodged caveats over the
properties, but a government caveat carries much more weight.

A 92-page originating application filed by the class action
lawyers in that court details some of the devastation wrought by
the Pearls scheme and its founder, Nirmal Singh Bhangoo, now in an
Indian jail.

The class action represents about 46,000 Pearls investors -- of an
estimated 10 million, including many of India's poorest -- who
belong to victim group the Janlok Prathishtan Sanghata Committee,
run by Sunanda Kadam of Pune, India.  "The 46,000 investors are
members of Janlok who invested for various causes and in many
cases represents their life savings for various future plans,
medical expenses for old age and the higher education of their
children," Ms. Kadam notes in an affidavit filed with the court.

Ms. Kadam said she had lost about $2000 in the scheme.  "I am not
well off and cannot afford to lose this money, which forms a part
of my life savings for my son's education," she said.

Pearls, spruiked in India by Australian cricketer Brett Lee, who
was paid $300,000 for his services, promised investors huge
returns if they invested in land parcels across India.

Many of those land parcels did not exist, and those that did were
in very poor locations and not worth a fraction of what investors
had been told.

In 2009, Australian government agency Austrade introduced Gold
Coast businessmen Paul Brinsmead and Peter Madrers to Pearls
executives with the view to the parties forming an Australian
business.  Pearls Australasia was founded by Mr. Madrers,
Mr. Brinsmead, Mr. Bhangoo and several of his family members, and
bought the Sheraton Mirage -- once owned by fugitive
Christopher Skase -- for $62m, spending $20m more on renovations.

Pearls India has since been wound up and investors are seeking to
have the hotel, and the $5m Sanctuary Cove mansion, sold, with
proceeds returned to them.

A spokesman for Mr. Madrers and Mr. Brinsmead said the class
action would leave Indian investors worse off because of fees and
legal costs.  "This is a rogue, opportunistic action by Australian
lawyers," he said.

Mr. Brinsmead and Mr. Madrers have previously said they were
unaware of problems with Pearls when they entered business with
the group and had relied on representations by Austrade.

They said they would prefer to work with Indian authorities to
deliver proceeds from the Sheraton over several years.


PEPE'S REST: "Camas" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS CAMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. PEPE'S REST. GROUP LLC, the
Defendant(s), Case No. 653500/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 1, 2016),
seeks unpaid minimum wage, statutory damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, liquidated and other damages, and all
other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the New
York State Labor Law (NYLL).

The Defendant scheduled Plaintiff to work and Plaintiff worked --
5 days a week, working from 4 p.m. through between 11 p.m. and l
a.m. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Class members $5.00 per
hour worked. The Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive tip
credit notice. Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff and Class
Members that their tips would be used as a credit against the
minimum wage.

The Defendant operates several restaurants throughout New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 808 2224
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Faces "Cahill" Suit in S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Performant Recovery, Inc. The
case is captioned Tiffany Ann Cahill, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Performant
Recovery, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01774-JLS-DHB
(S.D. Fla., July 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Janis L.
Sammartino.

Performant Recovery offers audit and recovery services to payers
of healthcare claims to protect against lost revenues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


PETROBRAS: Sept. 19 Trial Set in Investors' Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Leahy, writing for The Financial Times, reports that aggrieved
investors in Brazil's Petrobras have suffered over the past two
years as an investigation into the state-run oil company has
showed how corrupt former directors spent company funds on
everything from art collections to Range Rover Evoques.

But the most recent allegations in the scandal, in which
prosecutors allege former directors conspired with politicians and
contractors to defraud the company, take this one step further.

Prosecutors claim Paulo Ferreira, a former treasurer of Brazil's
erstwhile ruling Workers' party, took money originally destined
for a research and development centre for Petrobras's ultra-
deepwater oilfields and used it to pay a samba queen a monthly
stipend.

"At the request of Paulo Ferreira, there were made diverse
payments to the non-governmental organisation Sociedade Recreativa
e Beneficente Estado Maior da Restinga, a samba school, and people
linked to it, such as Viviane Rodrigues da Silva, the battery
queen," said a court document outlining Mr Ferreira's arrest.  He
was not available for comment.

The steady stream of corruption allegations is proving an irritant
for Petrobras, not just with criminal investigators in Brazil but
with institutional investors in New York.

In a class-action lawsuit led by the UK's Universities
Superannuation Scheme and backed by a range of the biggest global
pension funds, investors have sued the company in the US district
court in Manhattan for allegedly misrepresenting its financial
accounts by hiding widespread fraud.

Now lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to speed up that
lawsuit by filing a motion for a partial summary judgment with US
district court judge Jed Rakoff, ahead of an eight-week trial
scheduled to start on September 19.

"Petrobras raised tens of billions of dollars from investors
during the class period under the pretence that it would be used
to improve the company, but instead knowingly doled out the money
to insiders and politicians," says the motion.

It says the facts overwhelmingly suggest there was a violation of
securities law and the trial should focus not on disputing whether
there was fraud but on how much Petrobras should be required to
pay investors in compensation.

"The only issue to go to trial would be the level of damages,"
says Jeremy Lieberman, attorney for the plaintiffs at Pomerantz, a
law firm.

Petrobras and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, the company's
lawyers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Pedro Parente, Petrobras's new chief executive, said in June the
company was a victim of fraud, estimated to have cost it about
$2.5bn in losses directly related to corruption.

Analysts highlight how any damages ruling against Petrobras would
add to its already enormous debt load.  Some in the market say the
investor lawsuit could result in the third-largest payout in a
securities fraud case after Enron and WorldCom.

Concern over Petrobras's financial profile is driven by its large
amount of borrowings coming due -- $26.5bn out of total gross debt
of $126bn -- between April this year and the end of 2017. The
company has the largest debt load in the energy industry.

"They have to sell a lot of assets or have market access to avert
a default," says Nymia Almeida of Moody's Investors Service.

She adds that while the investor lawsuit was factored into Moody's
B3 junk rating for the company, which implies some level of
government support for Petrobras should it run into greater
financial difficulty, the details of any payout would be
important.  This includes how long Petrobras would have to find
the money.

Other analysts say while Petrobras is producing enough cash to
meet its debt interest payments and pay for capital expenditure on
its deepwater oilfields, it could struggle to reduce its
borrowings.

At more than six times earnings before interest, taxation,
depreciation and amortization, Petrobras's gross debt is high and
would be reduced only through asset sales, says Lucas Aristizabal
of Fitch, which has a BB rating on Petrobras's borrowings.

The secret will be to maintain liquidity, with cash and marketable
securities currently at $22.6bn, while the company tries to run an
ambitious divestment program to sell $15bn of assets by the end of
this year, he adds. So far, only about $2bn has been sold or
committed to disposal.

"That is the only way they will be able to pay down debt," says
Mr. Aristizabal.

He adds the appointment of Mr. Parente, a former head of the
Brazilian operations of Bunge, the trading house, who is seen as
market friendly, could be good for Petrobras.

"If the new CEO comes with a private sector mentality and is not
operating [the] company to favor any political agenda, that would
be positive for the company," says Mr. Aristizabal.

In the meantime, with the Petrobras investigations continuing,
investors will be left wondering what new surprises they might
uncover about what past directors were doing with the company's
money.


PHARMAVITE LLC: Bradach Files Appeal Ruling From C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Noah Bradach and Laura Corbett filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Noah Bradach, et al. v.
Pharmavite, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03218-GHK-AGR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2016, the Honorable George H. King denied the Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification.  According to the Court's civil
minutes, Noah Bradach appears to have asserted only preempted
false disease claims.  Hence, Judge King ordered him to show cause
in writing, within 14 days hereof, why his claims should not be
dismissed as preempted.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JtGBwW4P

The appellate case is captioned as Noah Bradach, et al. v.
Pharmavite, LLC, Case No. 16-80095, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
          NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          Facsimile: (805) 563-5385
          E-mail: jonathan@nps-law.com

               - and -

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Howard Sedran, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Max A. Stein, Esq.
          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 300-5505
          Facsimile: (312) 300-5546
          E-mail: mstein@boodlaw.com
                  sweltman@boodlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent Pharmavite, LLC, is represented by:

          Joseph Michael Price, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-8617
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: joseph.price@FaegreBD.com

               - and -

          Rene P. Tatro, Esq.
          TATRO TEKOSKY SADWICK LLP
          333 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 225-7171
          Facsimile: (213) 225-7151
          E-mail: renetatro@ttsmlaw.com


PLS DIABETIC: Podiatry In Motion Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Podiatry In Motion, Inc., asks the Court to enter an order
determining that the action captioned PODIATRY IN MOTION, INC, on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. PLS
DIABETIC SHOE COMPANY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06654 (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 defendant PLS
     Diabetic Shoe Company, Inc., promoting its goods or services
     for sale (d) and which did not contain a compliant opt out
     notice.

     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 (815 ILCS 505/10a), (c)
     were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant PLS Diabetic
     Shoe Company, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale
     (d) and which did not contain a complaint opt out notice.

     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 defendant PLS
     Diabetic Shoe Company, Inc., promoting its goods or services
     for sale (d) and which did not contain a complaint opt out
     notice.

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

Podiatry In Motion asserts that it is filing a class motion with
the complaint to avoid any "other defenses" as described by the
Seventh Circuit in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th
Cir. 2015).  While the Chapman court overruled the mootness issue
expressed in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir.
2011), the court specifically cautioned that rejecting a fully
compensatory offer may have consequences other than mootness.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ez5XrTDa

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Julie 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


PNC BANK: Alleged Ponzi Victims File $30MM Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gokavi, writing for WHIO, reports that a family of victims of
an alleged Ponzi scheme by William Apostelos filed a federal
lawsuit against PNC Bank, stating that it missed red flags that
Apostelos used his accounts in a suspicious manner.

The class action lawsuit recently filed by Dr. Rafael M. Cruz, Dr.
Gloria Cruz and Dr. Rafael F. Cruz in Dayton's U.S. District Court
seeks at least $30 million in damages.  The suit said there could
be more than 100 members eligible to join the suit as plaintiffs.

William and Connie Apostelos' federal criminal trial on 27
indicted counts related to running an alleged Ponzi scheme that
cost hundreds of investors to lose tens of millions of dollars is
set for January 2017.

"PNC had information indicating Apostelos was undertaking banking
activities indicative of someone who was operating a fraudulent
scheme and/or laundering money," Dr. Cruz family attorney Toby
Henderson wrote in the lawsuit.  "Thus, PNC knew or should have
known Apostelos was using the PNC accounts to launder money as
part of some larger criminal undertaking."

Ms. Apostelos' sister and niece each pleaded guilty to one count
of conspiracy this year and will be sentenced in March 2017. His
attorney, Steven Scudder, was charged with aiding and abetting in
wire fraud related to the Ponzi-scheme.  Mr. Scudder's arraignment
and plea hearing has been continued several times.

Fred Solomon in PNC's corporate communications office said on July
13 the company's usual practice is to not comment on litigation.


POMONA UNIFIED: Disabled Students File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Beau Yarbrough, writing for Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, reports
that Pomona Unified School District fails to "provide a safe
learning environment for its most vulnerable students: those with
developmental disabilities such as autism and intellectual
disabilities," according to a lawsuit filed on July 11.

The suit was first filed in October, but attorneys for the
Disability Rights Legal Center are hoping to broaden the suit into
a class action lawsuit, and filed a motion on July 11 to certify
the suit as a class action in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

"PUSD fails to ensure that staff working with these students are
properly trained or supervised," the suit reads in part, "and
fails to maintain procedures to provide prompt and accurate
reporting of student injuries to district administration and
parents.  As a result, these students are systematically excluded
from access to a public education."

The suit alleges six students with autism or other intellectual
disabilities have incurred serious and unusual injuries at school
but school officials "either could not or would not" adequately
explain what happened, and the students themselves have difficulty
communicating themselves.

Pomona Unified officials did not respond to a request for comment.

ONE CASE

"J.V. was first injured in 2012, when he came home from school
with a black eye," the suit reads in part.  His mother was
reportedly unable to get an explanation of what happened to her
son.  More injuries occurred over the next two years, including
serious bruising and puncture wounds.  A tooth cracked and fell
out.

Since filing in October, the Disability Rights Legal Center has
heard from more parents of severely disabled children in Pomona
Unified, all of whom reported "strikingly similar cases,"
according to Elizabeth Eubanks, Inland Empire regional director of
the center.

"In one situation, we had a mother take her son to the doctor who
said (her son's injuries) were not the result of a simple fall,"
she said.  "He actually had one long bruise across both of his
buttocks, like it was one long pole or one long stick."

The motion is scheduled to be heard before Judge John Kronstadt in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Aug. 29.  But Ms. Eubanks
suspects Judge Kronstadt won't make a decision on class status
until later this fall.

WHY A CLASS ACTION

Getting the suit certified as a class action will give the
plaintiffs more leverage, she said.

"It allows us to receive the more systemic relief that we really
want to see," Ms. Eubanks said.  "With two plaintiffs, we can ask
for those things, but the school district's position will be 'With
two plaintiffs, this is an isolated thing.'"

It'll also make it easier for more families to come forward, as
they won't have to file their own lawsuits.

"If there's other families with children with developmental
disabilities who've been injured, they can sign on as class
members," Ms. Eubanks said.  "Their identities won't be hidden,
but there will be more people in the crowd."

According to the suit, there were 667 students districtwide
considered autistic or intellectually disabled as of December
2014.

In October, the district released a press release saying that they
"care deeply about each one of our students, including our
students with special needs, and remain steadfastly dedicated to
ensuring their safety and well-being, and take very seriously any
allegation against Pomona Unified staff and have zero tolerance
for misconduct that violates the trust and safety of our students
and families."

Because the allegations touched on an open investigation,
Darren Knowles, Pomona Unified's assistant superintendent of human
resources, was quoted as saying in the October press release, "We
cannot comment further at this time."

The case is set for trial in summer 2017.


PRESSLER AND PRESSLER: Faces "Cervini" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Pressler and Pressler, LLP. The
case is captioned Angela Cervini, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pressler and
Pressler, LLP, Sheldon H. Pressler, Gerard J. Felt, Lawrence J.
McDermott, Jr., and David B. Warshaw, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-03827 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2016).

Pressler and Pressler is a law firm located in East Hanover New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RADIANT SERVICES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIVIANA SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RADIANT SERVICES CORP., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC626670 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 12, 2016), seeks damages and
penalties for inaccurate wage statements, unpaid wages, unpaid
penalty wages, unpaid wages for missed meal periods, unpaid wages
for missed rest periods, minimum wages, premium wages, liquidated
damages for unpaid minimum wages, and unpaid overtime wages, under
the Labor Code.

For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and
continuing to the present, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay wages, including minimum and overtime
wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of
California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as
a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time
worked.

Radiant Services provides laundry and dry cleaning services to the
hotel and restaurant industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705

               - and -

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Disputes Well Contamination Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Houghton, writing for Union Leader, reports that a legal
team for Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics is denying nearly every
claim brought forward in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
residents with contaminated wells near the company's Merrimack
plant.

According to court documents filed at Hillsborough County Superior
Court in Nashua, Saint-Gobain is rejecting the plaintiff's
"characterization of the facts and circumstances," and has denied
the majority of allegations brought forward by Kevin Brown, a
Litchfield resident serving as the primary plaintiff in two
separate class action suits against the company.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for trespass, nuisance, loss of
enjoyment and property damages in connection with water
contamination allegedly caused by the Saint-Gobain site at 701
Daniel Webster Highway.

Saint-Gobain's attorneys have asked that the class-action lawsuit
be moved from superior court to the federal U.S. District Court of
New Hampshire in Concord, a request that has since been granted by
Judge Jacalyn Colburn.

In a statement issued by Saint-Gobain, the company said it has
been and continues to be focused on providing clean drinking water
to the residents of Merrimack, Litchfield and other towns within
the 1.5-mile radius of its plant.

"To this end, we are funding bottled water and the engineering
design work by Pennichuck Corporation to explore options," said
Dina Silver Pokedoff, spokesman for Saint-Gobain.  "We will
continue to work closely with local and state officials, including
the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, with which
we are in ongoing discussions about the most appropriate way to
proceed."

The class-action lawsuit seeks compensatory and exemplary damages
arising out of chemical releases, discharges and leaks from the
Merrimack plant, and includes damages such as loss of property
values, along with costs of remediating the properties owned by
plaintiffs from the toxic chemicals allegedly released from Saint-
Gobain.

The lawsuit is on behalf of residents within a two-mile radius of
the Saint-Gobain facility in Merrimack who have had their wells
contaminated by perfluorochemicals.

According to the allegations listed in the civil lawsuit, Saint-
Gobain and its predecessors have used PFOA in various
manufacturing processes at the Merrimack plant.

Saint-Gobain acknowledges in court records that
polytetrafluoroethylene, or Teflon dispersions, have been used in
certain manufacturing applications at the Merrimack facility,
noting that numerous companies throughout the state have used
similar materials containing PFOA.


SAN JOSE, CA: Donald Trump's Supporters Sue Over Rally Violence
---------------------------------------------------------------
KTVU reports that the City of San Jose is facing a class action
lawsuit over how it handled protests outside a Donald Trump rally
in June.

On July 14 it was announced that 14 Trump supporters are suing the
city, claiming it didn't do enough to prevent or stop the
violence.

Those who filed the 44-page lawsuit range from a 14-year-old boy
to a 71-year-old woman.  They're seeking an unspecified amount of
damages and said the lawsuit is a clear message San Jose should be
held accountable.

"There's still some swelling in the nose," said Juan Hernandez, a
plaintiff in the lawsuit.  "At some point will need surgery."

Mr. Hernandez said he hasn't fully recovered after he was punched
in the face as he left the Trump rally.  The attack left the Trump
supporter with a broken nose.

"I'm not necessarily looking for the compensation," said
Mr. Hernandez.  "That's not what it's about.  It's about holding
someone accountable for what had happened; for standing by
watching people getting attacked.  It wasn't okay."

Mr. Hernandez is among the group who are suing the City of San
Jose, Mayor Sam Liccardo and Police Chief Eddie Garcia failing to
protect them against Anti-Trump protestors.  The lawsuit contends
the city deprived them of free speech and assembly and that city
leaders ordered the 250 officers to not intervene as the violence
broke out.

Mr. Trump took to Twitter accusing the mayor of doing a "terrible
job" of protecting innocent people and said "the thugs were lucky
supporters remained peaceful."

Mr. Hernandez alleges the mayor's opposition to Mr. Trump's
political views may have played a role.

"He had his biases about how Trump incited this," said
Mr. Hernandez.  "Trump didn't incite this they are attacking us
the protestors are attacking us."


SCOTTRADE INC: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that retail brokerage
Scottrade Inc. does not have to face a class action lawsuit
accusing it of negligence and breach of contract over the theft of
4.6 million customers' confidential information, a federal
magistrate judge in St. Louis, Missouri has ruled.

In a decision on July 12, U.S. Magistrate Judge Shirley Mensah
said customers had not shown that they suffered damages from the
2013-2014 data breach, part of what U.S. prosecutors called one of
the largest financial data thefts ever, targeting a dozen firms.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Settlement in "Lum" Case Has Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY LUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 521, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
05230-LHK (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).

For purposes of the Settlement Agreement, Class Members are
composed of all nonmember employees who, between December 1, 2012,
and the date of final approval of this Agreement by the District
Court, have timely and properly objected to paying non-chargeable
fees to Local 521. Employee is defined as a public sector employee
who is represented in collective bargaining by Local 521.

A copy of the court's decision dated June 30, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/ODsbAMfrom Leagle.com.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: To Incur US$130K Legal Costs in "Lum" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY LUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 521, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
05230-LHK (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Lucy H. Koh approved the
US$130,000.00 for Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs as agreed
in the Settlement Agreement of the parties.

The court viewed that the fee arrangement and amount agreed to in
the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable.

Within 30 days after the date on which all appeals that may be
taken from this Court's order awarding attorney's fees and costs
have been exhausted or abandoned, Defendant Service Employees
International Union Local 521 shall pay the National Right to Work
Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc., the legal costs
owed.

A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/D3P6Vufrom Leagle.com.

Service Employees International Union Local 521, Defendant,
represented by Kerianne Ruth Steele -- ksteele@unioncounsel.net
-- Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Jeffrey B. Demain --
jdemain@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Scott Alan
Kronland -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

County of Santa Clara, et al., Defendants, represented by Nancy
Joan Clark, Office of County Counsel & Michael Joseph Leon-
Guerrero -- michael.leonguerrero@cco.sccgov.org -- Santa Clara
County Counsel's Office.


SOUTHERN VANGUARD: Esparza Sues Over Insurance Coverage Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ESPARZA, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN VANGUARD INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 201646096-7 (D. Tex., July 12,
2016), seeks to recover sum, just compensation, actual damages,
consequential damages, treble damages under the Texas Insurance
Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

On January 8, 2016, a severe wind and hailstorm struck Pasedena,
Texas area causing severe damage to homes and businesses
throughout the area, including Plaintiff's Property.

The Defendant and/or its agent allegedly adjusted the Plaintiff's
claim. Without limitation, Defendant's adjuster misrepresented the
cause of scope, and cost to repair the damage to Plaintiff's
Property, as well as the amount of insurance coverage for
Plaintiff's claim/loss under Plaintiff's Policy.

Southern Vanguard is a Texas domestic insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Brooks Doherty, Esq.
          SPEIGHTS & WORRICH
          1350 North Loop 1604 E. Suite 104
          San Antonio, TX 78232
          Telephone: (210) 495 6789
          Facsimile: (210) 495 6790
          E-mail: ben@speights.com


SOUTHERN VANGUARD: Gomez Sues Over Insurance Coverage Adjustment
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELMER GOMEZ, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN VANGUARD INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 201646034-7 (D. Tex., July 12,
2016), seeks to recover sum, just compensation, actual damages,
consequential damages, treble damages under the Texas Insurance
Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

On January 8, 2016, a severe wind and hailstorm struck Pasedena,
Texas area causing severe damage to homes and businesses
throughout the area, including Plaintiff's Property.

The Defendant and/or its agent allegedly adjusted the Plaintiff's
claim. Without limitation, Defendant's adjuster misrepresented the
cause of scope, and cost to repair the damage to Plaintiff's
Property, as well as the amount of insurance coverage for
Plaintiff's claim/loss under Plaintiff's Policy.

Southern Vanguard is a Texas domestic insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Brooks Doherty, Esq.
          SPEIGHTS & WORRICH
          1350 North Loop 1604 E. Suite 104
          San Antonio, TX 78232
          Telephone: (210) 495 6789
          Facsimile: (210) 495 6790
          E-mail: ben@speights.com


SPRINT SPECTRUM: Bid to Dismiss "Emilio" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Sprint Spectrum L.P.'s motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned VINCENT
EMILIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., d/b/a SPRINT PCS,
Defendant, No. 11-CV-3041 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of Judge Oetken's July 7, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/CAWrLd from Leagle.com.

Vincent Emilio filed the Amended Complaint in the putative class
action on September 8, 2015.  Emilio alleged that Sprint violated
the Kansas Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act, by
misrepresenting a discretionary charge as a mandatory tax imposed
on customers by New York state, and by collecting more in state
taxes from putative class members than Sprint ultimately remitted
to the state.

Vincent Emilio, Petitioner, represented by Jason Allen Zweig --
jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
William Robert Weinstein, Law Offices of William R. Weisnstein &
Daniel Kurowski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Sprint Spectrum L.P., Respondent, represented by Joseph Andrew
Boyle -- jboyle@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Damon
William Suden -- dsuden@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren,
LLP, Elizabeth D. Silver -- esilver@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye
& Warren LLP, Jonathan Michael Wilan --
jonathan.wilan@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker & McKenzie LLP, Lauri A.
Mazzuchetti -- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP, pro hac vice, Nainesh Ramjee -- nramjee@kelleydrye.com --
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP & Vincent P. Rao -- vrao@kelleydrye.com
-- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.


STAFFING NETWORK: Sued Over Procurement of Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
AKEEM HOPKINS, individually and as a representative of the class,
the Plaintiff, v. STAFFING NETWORK HOLDINGS, L.L.C., d/b/a
STAFFING NETWORK, LLC and QUALITY PLACEMENT AUTHORITY, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-08813 (Ill. Cir, Ct., July 1, 2016),
seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys'
fees, equitable relief, and other appropriate relief for
Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).

According to the complaint, throughout the two years preceding the
filing of this action, Defendants have routinely procured consumer
reports on applicants and employees from consumer reporting
agencies, including Ferret Background Check (Ferret).
Ferret is a consumer reporting agency because it sells consumer
reports for employment purposes.

Staffing Network was founded in 1999. The Company's line of
business includes providing help supply and personnel supply
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550


STANDAFER & SONS: "Wood" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS WOOD, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated,
the Plaintiff(s), v. STANDAFER & SONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00245-JMH (E.D. Ken., July 1, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated and
continues to violate the FLSA by misclassifying its "installers"
as "independent contractors" and refusing to pay them overtime
premiums.

Standafer & Sons was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes the marketing of semi-finished metal products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Email: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


SWC GROUP: Faces "Fowlkes" Suit in E.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against SWC Group LP. The case is titled
Dawn Fowlkes and Zaire Bethea, on behalf of themself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWC Group LP, doing
business as Southwest Credit Systems, the Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-00501-RC (E.D. Tex., July 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Ron Clark.

SWC provides accounts receivable management services to small and
large companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryant Allen Fitts, Esq.
          FITTS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 871 1670
          Facsimile: (713) 583 1492
          E-mail: bfitts@fittslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Jr., Esq.
          William Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Hughes Ellzey LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 1120
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554 2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995 3335
          E-mail: jarrett@crafthugheslaw.com
                  craft@hughesellzey.com

               - and -

          Mark Alexander, Esq.
          MARK A ALEXANDER PC
          5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 850E
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (972) 364 9700
          Facsimile: (972) 239 2244
          E-mail: mark@markalexanderlaw.com


SWH MIMI'S: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. for Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------
ALEJO MENDEZ GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWH MIMI'S CAFE, LLC d/b/a MIMI'S
CAFE, the Defendant, Case No. BC625922 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1,
2016), seeks to recover statutory damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs from Defendants for violation of the
anti-discrimination statutes of California, the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, California Code, the California Disabled Persons Act, and
California Civil Code.

Plaintiff has paralysis of his lower extremities and requires a
wheelchair to move about. Plaintiff has visited and patronized
Mimi's Cafe restaurants within the State of California, and has
experienced discrimination at such restaurants. The Plaintiff is
being deterred from patronizing Mimi's Cafe but intends to return
to these restaurants for the dual purpose of availing himself of
the goods and services offered to the public at such restaurants
and to ensure that those restaurants cease evading their
responsibilities under state law.

SWH Mimi's owns and operates a chain of restaurants. It offers
French-inspired food menu for breakfasts, lunch, and dinners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247 0160


TIMBERCORP: Liquidators to Challenge Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a legal victory for Timbercorp investors could be short-lived
with liquidators to the failed managed investment scheme operator
preparing a High Court challenge.

In June, in the Court of Appeal in Victoria a group of Timbercorp
investors won a major technical victory in their battle against
the liquidator of the financing arm of the collapsed agribusiness
operator.

The Court of Appeal found the investors, who participated in a
failed class action against Timbercorp, could defend bankruptcy
and other legal actions brought against them as individuals by the
liquidator.

The legal victory means Timbercorp Finance liquidator Craig
Shepard of KordaMentha is facing the prospect of sifting through
more than 1000 defences to the bankruptcy and other legal claims
he has brought on behalf of the creditors of Timbercorp.

Mr. Shepard declined to comment as it was a legal matter.

Fairfax Media understands KordaMentha will file a request for
special leave to appeal the recent Court of Appeal decision to the
High Court.

Timbercorp, a spruiker of managed investment schemes, went bust in
2009 owing creditors, including the ANZ Bank, $750 million. More
than 18,500 investors were caught out in the collapse.

Many investors were unaware they had actually taken out loans
through Timbercorp Finance to fund their investments in the
schemes due to the product being poorly explained by planners, or
in some instances, the investors' signatures being forged on
documents.

The liquidators to Timbercorp Finance have been strongly
criticized by investors over their handling of these loans.  In
recent weeks, Fairfax Media revealed the independent expert
brought in by KordaMentha to assess hardship claims by Timbercorp
had left over how the hardship scheme was being run.

The legal action was originally brought on behalf of investors in
the Supreme Court of Victoria through two law firms -- Somerset
Ryckmans in Sydney and M+K Lawyers in Melbourne.

Somerset Ryckmans is representing 40 clients in its action led by
John Tomes, while M+K Lawyers is representing about 100 clients in
its action led by Douglas and Janet Collins.  Marc Ryckmans
declined to comment as the legal matter was ongoing.
Representatives for M+K did not respond to inquiries.

M+K Lawyers was also the plaintiff law firm on the original class
action.  The class action was appealed by lawyers for investors
from M+K Lawyers all the way to the High Court but failed at every
stage.

The law firm came in for strong criticism in a Senate report into
the failure of forestry schemes and was referred to the Legal
Services Commissioner over its handling of Timbercorp investors
who were advised to stop paying their debts while the five-year
proceeding was litigated.

The Court of Appeal ruling will not stop bankruptcy proceedings
against investors, however, investors who were members of the
earlier class action are now able to raise defenses that were not
raised in the class action.

The legal wrangling comes as another group of Timbercorp growers
represented by Slater & Gordon are preparing for a trial into
their test case about the enforceability of the loans.

That matter will be heard in August before going to mediation.

Other legal matters against financial advisers who reaped
thousands in commissions from flogging Timbercorp products to
advisers are either before the courts or in the works.


TOM'S FAMILY: "Cardenas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERY CARDENAS, an individual, individually, on behalf of the
general public, and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. TOM'S #5, LLC, a limited liability company; TOM'S #6, LLC, a
limited liability company; TOM'S #7, LLC, a limited liability
company; TOM'S #8, LLC, a limited liability company; TOM'S #9, a
business entity of unknown form; TOM'S #11, a business entity of
unknown form; TOM'S #12, LLC, a limited liability company; TOM'S
#14, LLC, a limited liability company; TOM'S #16, a business
entity of unknown form; TOM'S #17, a business entity of unknown
form; TOM'S #18, LLC, a limited liability company; TOM'S #19, a
business entity of unknown form; TOM'S #20, a business entity of
unknown form; TOM'S #21, a business entity of unknown form; TOM'S
#22, LLC, a limited liability company; TOM'S #23, a business
entity of unknown form; TOM'S #24, a business entity of unknown
form; TOM'S #25, a business entity of unknown form; TOM'S #26, a
business entity of unknown form; TOM'S #27, a business entity of
unknown form; TOM'S #28, a business entity of unknown form; TOM'S
#30, a business entity of unknown form; TOM'S #31, a business
entity of unknown form; TOM'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, a business
entity of unknown form; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC625895 (Cal. Super., Ct. July 1, 2016), seeks to
recover all wages which Plaintiff and other employees of
Defendants rightfully earned but have been denied, as well as any
penalties associated with Defendants' alleged rampant and willful
violations of the law, interest on the unpaid wage amounts, and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class work as food
service workers, including servers, bussers, cashiers, cooks, and
dishwashers at Defendants' various locations. The Plaintiff and
members of the Plaintiff Class have been subjected to numerous
wage and hour violations which are the result of systemic policies
and procedures implemented by Defendants. For example, regardless
of the employee's position, the Defendants do not make rest
periods available to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff
Class.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle Todd, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
          611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1112
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 208 9171
          Facsimile: (323) 693 0822
          E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com


TRI-VALLEY CORP: Court Dismisses Groblebe's 3rd Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint in the case captioned STEVEN SIEGAL,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. G. THOMAS GAMBLE, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 13-cv-03570-RS (N.D. Cal.).

David Groblebe claimed that the defendants Dr. Alfred Lopez and
Behrooz Sarafraz duped him into investing in the Tri-Valley
Corporation's (TVC) Opus I Drilling Program, LP.  According to
Groblebe, these investments were not as good as advertised: the
project was undercapitalized, TVC managed the product poorly, and
the broker-dealers hired to entice people like Groblebe to invest
in the program were unlicensed and paid exorbitant commissions.
In other words, the investment opportunity was "all shine, and no
substance."  Lopez and Sarafraz were among these unlicensed
brokers who facilitated investment in Opus or in aggregators --
LLCs designed to pool investments to permit multiple investors to
invest in Opus.  Groblebe insisted he would never have invested in
Opus or an aggregator had he known certain information about the
program and how TVC was managing it.  Groblebe accused Lopez and
Sarafraz of violating numerous provisions of the California
Corporations Code, violating their trust, and negligently
misrepresenting the financial health of Opus.

On Groblebe's third attempt to plead claims against Lopez and
Sarafraz, Judge Seeborg again found that he has failed to include
the who, what, where, when, and how that establish Lopez and
Sarafraz engaged in fraudulent conduct.  The judge also concluded
that there is no indication that Groblebe can remedy the problem,
so the judge granted the motions to dismiss the third amended
class complaint without leave to amend.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's July 7, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/yJy6qE from Leagle.com.

Steven Siegal, James Rybicki, David Groblebe, Christian Wipf,
Plaintiffs, represented by Edward Scott Zusman --
ezusman@mzclaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP, John
R. Fabry, Fabry Law Firm & Kevin K. Eng -- keng@mzclaw.com --
Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP.

G. Thomas Gamble, Defendant, represented by James Mark Neudecker -
- jneudecker@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

Loren J. Miller, Henry Lowenstein, Paul W. Bateman, Edward M.
Gabriel, James S. Mayer, Maston Cunningham, John Durbin, Greg
Billinger, Defendants, represented by Simona Gurevich Strauss --
sstrauss@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Stephen
Patrick Blake -- sblake@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher Bartlett
LLP.

Behrooz Sarafraz, Defendant, represented by David Terrell Chapman.

Lynn Blystone, Defendant, represented by Karen Palladino Ciccone -
- karen.ciccone@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Brian Miller --
brian.miller@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt, pro hac vice &
Samantha Kavanaugh -- samantha.kavanaugh@akerman.com -- Akerman
Senterfitt, pro hac vice.

Alfred Lopez, Defendant, represented by Christopher Charles Cooke
-- ccooke@mckllp.com -- Murphy Cooke Kobrick LLP.

K&L Gates LLP, Defendant, represented by Joseph Patrick McMonigle
-- jmcmonigle@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP, John B. Sullivan,
Long & Levit LLP & Kate G. Kimberlin -- kkimberlin@longlevit.com
-- Long and Levit LLP.


TRUMP ENTREPRENEUR: Class Action Moves Forward in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Aron Macarow, writing for attn.com, reports that Republican
presidential candidate Donald Trump attempted to call out
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for fraud on Twitter on July 17,
suggesting that it would make his campaign easier if she were to
become presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's running
mate.

But the Democratic senator fired back.  Sen. Warren blasted
Mr. Trump's business record one tweet at a time in a frenzy of
posts that focused on the ongoing allegations against Trump
University.

Why is Warren attacking Trump on Trump University?

There are three separate cases pending against Trump U.,
representing the interests of thousands of former Trump U.
students.

Two federal class-action suits have been filed in California by
former students.  A state suit, People v. Trump Entrepreneur
Initiative LLC, is also moving forward in New York, where the
state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has made his views
particularly clear.

"It's fraud.  This is straight up fraud," Mr. Schneiderman told
MSNBC's "Morning Joe" back in June.  "The law is very clear.  The
law protects [the] gullible as well as the sophisticated.  As
we've seen over the course of the last year, there are a lot of
people who fall for Mr. Trump's promises and rhetoric."

The New York attorney general also repeatedly described Mr. Trump
as dishonest in reference to the Manhattan businessman's role in
the now defunct operation.

Mr. Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly denied the suits'
allegations, arguing in part that complaints "emanated from a
small number of former students and . . . the vast majority had
offered positive reviews of their experience," The New York Times
reported.

Beyond exposing the fraud allegations against Mr. Trump,
Sen. Warren also referenced what she argued was the Trump
campaign's sexism.

Sen. Warren tweeted that a woman could earn "a good job on her
own" without resorting to underhanded tactics -- referring to
Mr. Trump's suggestion that she had committed fraud.

Then she finished by calling him out as a bully.

After her similar Twitter attack on July 16 on Mr. Trump's running
mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, it's clear that
Sen. Warren is on the offense against the Trump-Pence campaign.
And she isn't mincing words.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Inclined to Deny Fraud Case Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge says he is inclined to deny a request to dismiss a
lawsuit against Donald Trump that accuses the Republican
presidential nominee of defrauding customers at the now-defunct
Trump University.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel did not elaborate on his
thinking during a lengthy hearing on July 22 in San Diego.  It is
one of three lawsuits against Trump University.  He will issue a
final decision in writing at a later time.

Mr. Trump's attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, is urging the judge to
reconsider, calling the lawsuit a "gross overreach" of federal
civil racketeering statutes.

He says plaintiffs have failed to show that Trump himself
orchestrated allegedly misleading marketing claims.

Mr. Trump has accused Judge Curiel of being biased against him.

One day after Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination for
president of the United States, his lawyers will be in court to
try to get a lawsuit dismissed alleging that the business mogul
defrauded customers who took courses with false promises of
teaching success in real estate at the now-defunct Trump
University.

Lawyers for Trump was set to appear on July 22 before U.S.
District Judge Gonzalo Curiel to argue that a lawsuit against the
nominee lacks merit.

The complaint filed in 2013 by a former customer is one of two
class-action lawsuits that Mr. Trump faces in San Diego over Trump
University before the same judge, a target of the nominee's
repeated scorn.  Mr. Trump also faces a lawsuit in New York.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arguments Heard in Price-Fixing Sanctions Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for Law.com, reports that Southern District
Judge Jed Rakoff was set to hear arguments on July 14 on whether
to sanction Uber Technologies Inc. over a claim that the company
hired a private investigator to conduct a "reputational"
investigation into antirust plaintiff Spencer Meyer and his lawyer
Andrew Schmidt.

Mr. Meyer, an Uber rider who alleges that Uber CEO Travis Kalanick
directed an price-fixing conspiracy through the ride-sharing app,
says the investigative firm, Global Precision Research, lied to
third parties about why they were making inquiries.  Mr. Meyer
also maintains that the investigation firm, which does business as
Ergo, misrepresented itself while looking into Schmidt, telling
interview subjects they were being contacted for a profile of him
as an up-and-coming labor lawyer.

"Ergo conducted its investigation through illegal and unethical
means," lawyers for Mr. Meyer said in a memo filed with Judge
Rakoff. "Uber, including the two Uber lawyers involved in ordering
this investigation, claims to have exercised no oversight of the
investigation."

In all, Mr. Meyer's lawyers asserted, Ergo contacted 28 friends,
acquaintances or co-workers of Mr. Meyer, and "the investigator
lied to every one of them."

For his trouble, Mr. Meyer wants the defendants to pay for the
attorney fees and costs of litigating the motion. He also seeks an
order precluding them from seeking discovery about him.

Attorneys for Mr. Kalanick and Uber answered Mr. Meyer's sanction
memorandum with a mostly redacted memo of their own, denying that
Mr. Meyer has been prejudiced.

"Defendants' legitimate attempts to protect privileged
communications are not grounds for sanctions," the lawyers told
the judge.

In addition to the sanctions arguments, Judge Rakoff on July 14
was set to hear from both sides on the defendants' motion to send
the case to arbitration.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, representing Uber, and Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, representing Kalanick, argued that an agreement signed by
all Uber riders commits them to arbitrating any dispute -- and
that Mr. Kalanick has the right to enforce it.

The agreement also goes further, they said, because it leaves the
question of what is and is not a subject for arbitration up to the
arbitrator, as opposed to Judge Rakoff.

"In a transparent attempt to avoid the arbitration agreement,
plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging Uber's business model as
a purported price-fixing scheme," the Uber and Kalanick lawyers
wrote.

In addition to Schmidt, Mr. Meyer is represented by attorneys from
Constantine Cannon; McKool Smith; Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel; and Harter Secrest & Emery.

They contend Rakoff is the one who should make the call on whether
the case should be decided by an arbitrator. Kalanick, they argue,
is where he belongs -- in the Southern District.

"Kalanick, formally accompanied by Uber as part of his legal team
in court, decided to litigate this putative class action antitrust
case in the Southern District of New York," the attorneys said.
"He made a strategic decision not to attempt to dodge the case
through private arbitration.  Now, halfway to a trial-ready date
and facing exposure, Kalanick seeks to abort his old strategy and
replace it with a new one."

They also argued that Mr. Meyer never agreed to arbitrate, saying
Uber's purported user contract was contained in "a fine print
hyperlink, well below the 'register' button that Uber instructed
Plaintiff to click to sign up for the Uber app."

Lawyers for Uber, however, counter that the link "was presented in
a clear and conspicuous format that is both ubiquitous in the
digital realm and routinely enforced by courts."

The case is Meyer v. Kalanick, 15-cv-9796.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Defers Ruling on Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES LATHROP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-05678-JST (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the plaintiff's motion to defer
consideration of Uber's motion for summary judgment.

Judge Tigar concluded that a hearing on Uber's summary judgment
would be premature in light of the plaintiff's discovery efforts,
and the number of outstanding discovery requests.

Judge Tigar terminated Uber's motion for summary judgment, and
Uber may re-notice the motion pending the completion of fact and
expert discovery.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's July 7, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/QRqzXc from Leagle.com.

The case is a putative class action alleging that Uber's practice
of sending text messages to recruit drivers violates the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  The plaintiffs alleged that they
received automatic texts from Uber without having expressly
consented to receive them.

James Lathrop, Jonathan Grindell, Sandeep Pal, Jennifer Reilly,
Justin Bartolet, Plaintiffs, represented by Hassan Ali Zavareei
-- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Andrea R. Gold -
- agold@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew
J. Silver -- asilver@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro hac
vice, Evan Matthew Meyers -- McGuire Law, P.C., pro hac vice,
Kristen Law Sagafi -- ksagafi@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP
& Myles P. McGuire, McGuire Law PC, pro hac vice.

Kafatos Alexios, Intervenor Pla, represented by Todd Michael
Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C..

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell
-- jsnell@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Austin Van Schwing
-- aschwing@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Charles
William Proctor -- cproctor@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn, Debra
Rae Bernard -- dbernard@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, pro
hac vice, Julie Erin Schwartz -- jschwartz@perkinscoie.com --
Perkins Coie LLP, Nicola Carah Menaldo -- nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com
-- Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel S. Brass --
rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Sarah J.
Crooks -- scrooks@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac
vice.


UNITED PARCEL: Flores Appeals Order in Pricey Air Service Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lisa Flores and Mary Lee filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Lisa Flores, et al. v. UPS, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01182-GW-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Flores, et al. v. UPS, et
al., Case No. 16-56021, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs alleged that United Parcel Service employs an unfair
and deceptive practice of selling customers nonexistent, expensive
air service and charging them for aviation fuel on letters and
packages.  The Plaintiffs asserted that UPS, under the names "Next
Day Air" and "2nd Day Air," sells its customers alleged expensive
"air" shipping services for domestic letters and packages.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Paul Robert Alanis, Esq.
          Loren S. Ostrow, Esq.
          KOAR International, LLC
          46 W. Dayton Street
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Telephone: (626) 356-1188

               - and -

          Matthew J. Geragos, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          E-mail: matthew@geragoslaw.com

               - and -

          Kathleen H. Goodhart, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2012
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: kgoodhart@cooley.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Neal, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          5 Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Telephone: (650) 843-5182
          E-mail: nealsc@cooley.com

               - and -

          Peter J. McNulty, Esq.
          MCNULTY LAW FIRM
          827 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 471-2707
          Facsimile: (310) 472-7014
          E-mail: peter@mcnultylaw.com

               - and -

          Bethany Christa Lobo, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: blobo@cooley.com

               - and -

          Kirk D. Tresemer, Esq.
          TRESEMER LAW
          1890 Gaylord Street
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (720) 598-5125
          E-mail: ktresemer@coloradolawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees United Parcel Service, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; United Parcel Service, Inc., an Ohio Corporation;
United Parcel Service General Services Co., a Delaware
Corporation; and United Parcel Service Company, a Delaware
Corporation doing business as United Parcel Service Co. (AIR), are
represented by:

          Paul Terry Friedman, Esq.
          Caitlin Sinclaire Blythe, Esq.
          Ruth N. Borenstein, Esq.
          Stacey Michelle Sprenkel , Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7444
          E-mail: pfriedman@mofo.com
                  cblythe@mofo.com
                  rborenstein@mofo.com
                  ssprenkel@mofo.com

               - and -

          Gregory Bryant Koltun, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite # 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-5551
          E-mail: gkoltun@mofo.com


UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Arguments in Class Action v. NSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nate Carlisle, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that
former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson on July 14 went against
lawyers for the National Security Administration, arguing his
federal class-action lawsuit over surveillance during the 2002
Winter Olympics should proceed.

"We are not alleging the possibility" that communications were
collected, Anderson told U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby.  "We
are alleging facts."

The July 14 hearing didn't weigh in on the merits of mass
surveillance.  Instead, Judge Shelby listened to arguments about
whether the facts Mr. Anderson alleges meet the legal standards
for bringing a lawsuit.

The federal government has not acknowledged any surveillance
during the Olympics and has contended Anderson has no evidence any
of his plaintiffs were surveilled.

A lawyer for the NSA, Caroline Anderson, contended that the former
mayor doesn't have enough evidence to continue.  She said the
plaintiffs are making assumptions and inferring
connections -- from the existence of a mass surveillance program
during the Olympics to the idea that the government still has any
such communications 14 years after the games.

"There's simply been nothing to raise that from the possibility
level to the plausibility level," Caroline Anderson said.  She is
no relation to the former mayor.

Rocky Anderson pointed out the NSA is not denying any of his
allegations.  He said he has offered the most specific facts he
can given the secretive nature of the surveillance programs.

"I wish I could describe the people who have come forward or the
people I've tracked down," the former mayor said.

"We're not going to do that today," Judge Shelby replied.

Judge Shelby is expected to rule in the coming weeks on whether
the lawsuit should be dismissed.  If he allows the case to
proceed, it could move to what lawyers call a discovery phase,
where the NSA could be forced to provide documents that get to the
heart of the lawsuit.

In 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported that the NSA, working
with telecommunication companies, monitored phone calls and text
messages during the Salt Lake City Olympics.

Rocky Anderson, who was mayor during the games, has cited that
report and documents in the public record, including those from
other lawsuits against the NSA, to build the class-action lawsuit
he filed last year.

His clients are a group of people who believe their communications
were collected during the games.  One of those plaintiffs, state
Sen. Howard Stephenson, was in the gallery on July 14.

"I want to make sure the citizens know the boundaries they have in
their privacy," Sen. Stephenson said after the hearing.


UNUM GROUP: Court Dismissing "Don" Action
-----------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL DON, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RUBEN DON, et
al., Individually, and as the Class Representatives on behalf of
those insureds similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNUM GROUP a
Delaware Corporation; and UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
a Maine Corporation, Defendants, No. CV 13-4502-DSF (VBKx), (C.D.
Calif.), District Judge Dale Fischer has entered an Order (1)
Approving the Class Action Settlement, (2) Awarding Class
Counsel's Fees and Class Counsel's Expenses, (3) Awarding Service
Awards and Payments to Class Representatives, (4) Permanently
Enjoining Parallel Proceedings, and (5) Dismissing this Action
with Prejudice.

Judge Fischer dismissed all the claims of Plaintiffs and the
Settlement Class Members, with prejudice on the merits, without
fees to any party except as provided in the Stipulation to the
extent not inconsistent with the Court's Order awarding Class
Counsel's Attorneys' Fees and Class Counsel's Expenses.

Subject to the Court's judgment, the Settlement Class includes the
following:

     -- "Subclass I" means all current and former insureds
nationwide whose Unum LTC Policies state "[u]nless we tell you
something else, years, months and anniversaries that we refer to
are calculated from the Policy Date" and Unum used (for insureds
with "accrued damages"), is using (for insureds "in claim"), or
will use (for "future claimant" insureds) the Effective Date. The
class representative for Subclass I is Don.

     -- "Subclass IV" means all current (as of the Settlement
Agreement Execution Date) and former insureds nationwide whose
Unum LTC Policies contain an optional provision for inflation
protection which states that their Lifetime Maximum Benefit Amount
will increase, and Unum applied (for insureds with "accrued
damages"), is applying (for "in claim" insureds), or will apply
(for "future claimant" insureds) the annual inflation increase to
the remaining Lifetime Maximum Benefit Amount, even though the
word "remaining" does not quantify or reduce the Lifetime Maximum
Benefit Amount. The class representatives for Subclass IV are Don
for those insureds who have "accrued damages," and Pelham for the
"in claim" and "future claimant" insureds.

     -- "Subclass VII" means all current and former insureds under
Unum's LTC Policies nationwide issued pre-2002 who since 2010
received a "duplicate" policy that was not an exact copy of their
original policy. The class representatives of Subclass VII are
Pelham for "in claim" insureds, and Little for "future claimant"
insureds.

Excluded from the Class Members are those: (1) persons who
properly opted-out of the Settlement; (2) any officer, director,
employee or agent of Unum; and (3) any judge, justice, or judicial
official presiding over the Action and the staff and immediate
family of any such judge, justice, or judicial official.
Notwithstanding the above, no Claim shall be eligible for or
approved for Settlement Relief with respect to any Policy for
which a valid agreement or release exists between Unum and the
Settlement Class Member that would preclude the Settlement Class
Member's right to receive relief from the Settlement.

The Court also permanently enjoined parallel proceedings.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 5, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/d0lzJKfrom Leagel.com.

Unum Life Insurance Company of America, et al., Defendants,
represented by Joshua E. Anderson -- janderson@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP, Joel S. Feldman -- jfeldman@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice & Lisa E. Schwartz --
lschwartz@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice.


VECTOR MARKETING: "Wood" Case Settlement Wins Preliminary OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM WOODS (CA), et al., individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
VECTOR MARKETING CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
14-CV-00264-EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen granted
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement, as it satisfies the range of
reasonableness and meets the requirements for a preliminary
approval.

The Case concerns Defendants' failure to pay wages for the initial
three to five days of its administered training, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the laws of the states of
California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
York and Ohio.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator
is ordered to mail the Class Notice to the Class members. Each
Class Member will have 45 days after the date on which the
Settlement Administrator mails the Class Notice to object to the
Settlement by filing with the Court, by the 45-day deadline, a
written objection to the Settlement.

The Court added that each Class Member who wishes to be excluded
from the Settlement shall submit a timely Request for Exclusion to
the Settlement Administrator, at the address set forth in the
Notice of Settlement, postmarked no later than 45 days from the
date the notice is first mailed.

The order granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
established the following briefing and hearing date schedules:

     (a) July 14, 2016 -- Defendant will produce the class list
and data to the TPA (10 business days after preliminary approval
order);

     (b) July 28, 2016  --  The TPA will mail notice to class
members (within 10 business days after receiving the list);

     (c) August 26, 2016  --  Plaintiffs will file their motion
for approval of fees, costs and enhancements (17 days prior to the
deadline for exclusions/objections, exceeding the Mercury
Interactive requirement);

     (d) September 1, 2016  --  Plaintiffs will file their motion
for final approval (35 days prior to the final approval hearing);

     (e) September 12, 2016  --  Deadline to Request Exclusion
from the Settlement or Object to Settlement;

     (f) September 22, 2016  --  Last day for TPA to notify
parties of the number of Requests for Exclusions;

     (g) September 22, 2016  --  Plaintiffs will file any
supplemental papers/declarations as to any updated exclusion and
objection submissions as of the close of the Notice period (14
days prior to the final approval hearing); and

     (h) October 6, 2016  --  hearing date for Final Approval
Hearing.

A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/23P8Epfrom Leagle.com.

Vector Marketing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Karen
Joyce Kubin -- KKubin@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Derek
Francis Foran -- dforan@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, James
R. Grasso -- jgrasso@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP,
Joanna J. Chen -- jchen@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP,
Kenneth A. Manning -- kmanning@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle
LLP, Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr. -- laubry@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP & William J. Brennan -- wbrennan@phillipslytle.com
-- Phillips Lytle LLP.


VEROS CREDIT: Response to "Cosper" Suit Due Aug. 8
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, YOLANDA COSPER and FRED LUMPKIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Ctrm. 10 Plaintiff. v.
VEROS CREDIT, LLC Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01752-MCE-CKD (E.D.
Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. continued the
Defendant's deadline to respond on the complaint on August 8, 2016
from June 24, 2016, following the approval to amend plaintiff's
complaint on July 8, 2016.

Plaintiffs have expressed an intent to amend the First Amended
Complaint to address the issues raised in the Supreme Court's
rulings in "Campbell-Ewald" and "Spokeo" actions. Defendant may
have through August 8 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the
Second Amended Complaint.

A copy of the June 30, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/b0M992from Leagle.com.

Veros Credit, LLC, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Snavely
Saelao -- rss@severson.com -- Severson & Werson & Scott James
Hyman -- sjh@severson.com -- Severson & Werson.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Upholds Shareholder Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Anne D'Innocenzio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal appeals court has rejected a shareholder lawsuit filed
against key directors at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that claimed they
allowed and concealed alleged bribery in the company's Mexico
division.

Chief Judge William Riley wrote for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals that shareholders, including the Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees' Retirement System, did "not give rise to a
reasonable reference" that the board of directors learned of the
suspected bribery while it was being covered up and the internal
investigation squashed. It upheld an Arkansas district court's
dismissal.

The case followed a New York Times report that Wal-Mart's Mexican
unit paid millions in bribes to speed building permits.

Wal-Mart said the ruling showed the board of directors, not
individual shareholders, has authority to manage those kinds of
corporate matters.


WALDMAN & KAPLAN: "O'Brien" Suit Defeats Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINE O'BRIEN AND JOHN O'BRIEN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WALDMAN
& KAPLAN, P.A., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-7429 (MAS)
(LHG), (D. N.J.), District Judge Michael A. Shipp favored
Plaintiffs' claim over a motion to dismiss Defendants' alleged
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The subject in the case involves a correspondence from Defendants
concerning Plaintiffs' debt. Plaintiffs cited that in the "Caprio"
case the contents of the correspondence invite the recipient to
call or write for any disagreement.

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim bears the
defendants' burden of showing that no claim has been presented in
the complaint.

In this case, Defendants have not met its burden of demonstrating
that no claim has been presented, thus, warrants the court to deny
Defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Shipp said.

A copy of the court's decision dated June 30, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/zIFKOzfrom Leagle.com.

WALDMAN & KAPLAN, P.A., Defendant, represented by AGNES MOMBRUN
-- agnes@dwaldmanlaw.com -- Waldman & Kaplan, P.A..


WASHINGTON: Court Allows Loan Borrowers' Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Laura
Jordan came home from work one day to find herself locked out.
She had missed two mortgage payments, and the company servicing
her loan had changed the locks without warning.

In a ruling this month, the Washington Supreme Court found that
action illegal -- a decision that clears the way for a federal
class-action case that Ms. Jordan brought on behalf of at least
3,600 borrowers in the state, and one that could have broad
ramifications on how some lenders respond when homeowners miss
payments.

"This is criminal trespass and theft, and it should be treated as
such," said Sheila O'Sullivan, executive director of the Northwest
Consumer Law Center.  "There's no basis for them to walk in and
change the locks on a person's home until they have foreclosed.
It's an important ruling."

The mortgage industry is wrestling with the significance of the 6-
3 ruling, which found that provisions standard in mortgage
documents around the country conflict with state law.  The
provisions allow for lenders to change locks, winterize homes or
take other steps to preserve the value of properties that are in
default or abandoned.

In a friend-of-the-court-brief, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation -- better known as Freddie Mac -- highlighted the
importance of such provisions in maintaining its collateral and
avoiding blight that might harm property values in a neighborhood.

But the court held that they violate state law, which prohibits
lenders from taking possession of property before foreclosure. The
court addressed the question at the request of a federal judge in
Spokane, who is overseeing the class action.

Washington appears to be the first state in the nation that has
invalidated the provisions, the plaintiffs' lawyers say, and
consumer advocates say other states could follow suit or that the
ruling could inspire additional class-action lawsuits.

In Ms. Jordan's case, Dallas-based Nationstar Mortgage hired a
vendor to inspect her Wenatchee property in 2011 after she missed
a couple mortgage payments in 2011.  The vendor posted a notice on
the door saying the property was "unsecure or vacant," prompting
the company to have the locks changed.  Jordan, a dental
hygienist, argues that she was still living there, and that when
she got home from work, she found herself locked out.  The new key
to the house was in a lock-box, and she had to call Nationstar to
get the combination to retrieve it.

"She could no longer access her home without going through
Nationstar," Justice Susan Owens wrote for the majority.  "This
action of changing the locks and allowing her a key only after
contacting Nationstar for the lockbox code is a clear expression
of control."

Nationstar said it was evaluating whether to ask the court to
reconsider to narrow the impact of the decision.  A spokesman for
Freddie Mac said the organization would not comment on the ruling.

"For many years, we have followed standard industry practices
regarding property preservation," Nationstar said in an emailed
statement.  "Particularly if broadly construed, the decision will
likely hamper loan servicers' efforts to maintain abandoned
properties and avoid blight in Washington communities."

The Northwest Consumer Law Center, which works with financially
troubled borrowers to help them modify their loans or otherwise
retain their properties, argued that the real reason Nationstar
was quick to change locks was to prompt people to move out --
making it more likely that foreclosure would proceed uncontested.
Several borrowers whose locks were changed said their properties
were incorrectly deemed abandoned, and that they believed they had
no right to remain once the locks were changed.

Clay Gatens, a Wenatchee lawyer who represents the plaintiffs,
said that if properties are truly abandoned and at risk, under
Washington law lenders do have a quicker alternative to
foreclosure, which can take months. That's to have a court appoint
a receiver, he said.

Mr. Gatens said he's seeking damages that include the fair rental
value of the class members' properties between the time the locks
were changed and the time the foreclosures were eventually
completed -- a period that typically spanned eight to 10 months,
meaning damages could easily reach into the tens of millions of
dollars, he said.

"You have all this egregious behavior," he said.  "These folks are
in economic distress.  They don't know what's happened -- they
just know their home's been broken into and the locks have been
changed, which prompts them to move.  This ruling has got broad,
broad ramifications in Washington to stop this practice, but I
think it will have national impact as well."


WCA WASTE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Fees
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Garrison, writing for Farmington Daily Times, reports that a
Bloomfield man has filed a class-action lawsuit in district court
alleging that a local waste disposal company charges customers
deceptive fees.

David Coponiti claims in the lawsuit that the WCA Waste
Corporation regularly bills its customers for a fuel surcharge,
also called an energy recovery fee, and an environmental fee.
Mr. Coponiti argues that both fees are arbitrary and unconnected
to either the fuel or environmental costs associated with local
waste disposal.  Instead, the fees are intended to generate extra
profit for the corporation, according to Mr. Coponiti, which
violates the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

The WCA Waste Corporation, headquartered in Houston, provides
waste disposal services to the majority of San Juan County, as
well as the cities of Aztec and Bloomfield, according to the
company's website.  The corporation also provides services in
southwest Colorado.

The company did not respond to requests for comment, but on its
website, the corporation states the energy recovery fee is based
on national average diesel fuel cost estimates by the Energy
Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy.

"The energy recovery fee is not designed nor intended to be
specific to the direct costs and expense of servicing an
individual customer's account," the website states.  "Rather, it
is intended to address the overall fuel costs and expenses
incurred by WCA and its affiliates and to achieve an operating
margin acceptable to WCA."

The website further explains that the environmental fee, expressed
as a percentage of total invoice charges, excluding taxes and
fees, is intended to address environmental costs and achieve an
acceptable operating financial margin.

Mr. Copiniti is seeking unspecified damages for violation of the
state act and unjust enrichment.  The lawsuit was filed June 29 in
the Eleventh Judicial District.

Mr. Copiniti could not be reached for comment, but he is
represented in the lawsuit by Aztec attorney Ryan Lane, and
attorneys Oscar Price and Nicholas Armstrong, both of Birmingham,
Ala.

Mr. Lane said on July 14 Mr. Copiniti is a former WCA Waste
Corporation customer who switched to a competitor because he was
upset with the corporation's fees.  Mr. Lane said he shared
Mr. Copiniti's frustration, and the two of them contacted Price
and Armstrong, who have filed a similar lawsuit in Arkansas
challenging WCA Waste Corporation's fees.  That lawsuit was
removed to federal court on June 27.

"The goal is to have WCA discontinue the practice of generating
profit in the name of environmental and fuel surcharge fees, when
they aren't (that) at all," Lane said.

Mr. Lane said after WCA files a response to Mr. Copiniti's
complaint, a judge will be asked to rule on whether the lawsuit
can continue as a class-action suit.  Mr. Lane said if the judge
rules in their favor, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit will then
include all New Mexico residents who have paid fuel or
environmental fees to the corporation.

He said the plaintiffs will seek reimbursement of all fees paid to
the corporation, as well as civil penalties for fraud.


WESTAR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Great Plains Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
filed claiming that Westar Energy executives undervalued the
company when selling it to Great Plains Energy.

The Topeka-Capital Journal reports that Westar's board of
directors agreed to sell the company for about $12.2 billion on
May 29.  According to the agreement, stockholders will receive $51
in cash and $9 in Great Plains stock.

Westar stockholder Troy Miller says that is unacceptable and filed
the suit against the two companies and eight executives on July
13.

Mr. Miller says Westar's stock price increased 55 percent in the
year before its sale, but the $60 stock price Great Plains paid is
only a 13 percent increase in Westar's stock price.  He says Great
Plains will get an increasingly valuable company, but will pay
much less than what it is worth.

"The proposed transaction is the product of a flawed process and
deprives Westar's public stockholders of fair consideration for
their shares," Thomas Hammond II, Miller's attorney, wrote in the
lawsuit.

Westar spokeswoman Gina Penzig says the company cannot comment on
pending litigation.

The lawsuit asks Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks to
block the sale of Westar to Great Plains or, if it has already
been completed, to rescind it.

No hearings have been scheduled.


* Class Action New Concept to SA, Silicosis Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Graham Briggs, writing for BDlive, reports that the class action
that is being brought against current and former gold-mining
companies on behalf of mine workers with silicosis and
tuberculosis (TB) is a first of its kind.  It is the first time
anywhere in the world that an entire industry has been sued,
rather than a single defendant.

Even in US tobacco lawsuits, the defendants were single tobacco
companies.  In the class action against Walmart over its
employment practices, even though the case covered multiple
Walmart stores and offices in the US, the country's Supreme Court
refused to certify the class.

The silicosis class action seeks to sue, in a single case,
multiple companies -- each with mines of varying descriptions,
different policies, practices and circumstances.

The intended class action is also novel because of the length of
time at issue.  It relates to mine workers who were employed on
gold mines between 1965 and 2014.  This 49-year period traversed
drastic technological, political, social and economic changes,
with consequent changes at the mines and mining companies.

"SA has little experience of class actions.  The concept is
relatively new to our courts and our lawyers, and we do not have
the established legal framework for it that one might find in the
US," Mr. Briggs said.

"In matters as complex as this, our courts regularly consider
international precedents.  The high court, in its judgment,
preferred to follow the international precedent established by
Canadian courts, rather than the approach adopted by the US
Supreme Court, in assessing whether there was sufficient
commonality to justify certifying a class action."

A Canadian court assessing this question focused on whether there
was a common question to be answered in the suit.  The US Supreme
Court's test for commonality was framed as whether the examination
of the proposed class members' claims would produce a common
answer.

As SA's Supreme Court of Appeal has, in a previous case, followed
the US Supreme Court decision on this issue, the mining companies
believe that there is a reasonable possibility that it may differ
from the route taken by the high court.

The claimants' lawyers have sought to construct a class action
that, in the opinion of the companies, will be unworkable.  It is
too big, unwieldy and factually and legally complicated to be run
sensibly.  It will take years, perhaps decades, to have the issues
determined, because of the huge variances between mines owned and
operated by different companies over half a century.

For example, when considering the issue of dust control measures,
there may have been different ventilation and, therefore, varying
dust levels on the different levels of a shaft on a single mine at
any given time.  So, for a court to consider whether any company's
dust-control measures were deficient will potentially require
evidence relating to the conditions on each level of each shaft of
each mine for each period in issue.  This on its own could take
many years to be determined, at great cost.

The certification of a TB class is even more problematic.
According to Mine Health and Safety Council data, 1,500-2,000 gold
miners are diagnosed with TB each year.  TB is potentially
contracted from many different sources.  There are 450,000 cases
of TB a year in SA.  Of the mine workers who contracted TB, how
does one tell which cases are caused by occupational factors and
which by other factors?

Mine workers benefit from comprehensive TB screening and treatment
provided by their employers -- far more comprehensive and
effective than any other private or public health-sector program.
Mine workers who contract TB are entitled to up to six months'
paid sick leave -- sufficient time for a full course of curative
treatment, so few need recourse to compensation in these
circumstances.  All of this militates against certifying a TB
class action.

Adding to the envisaged inefficiency of the matter, the high court
has certified a two-stage process -- the first to determine the
as-yet-undefined "common issues", and the second comprising
individual claims to determine matters specific to each claimant.
This means that the class action will become a multitude of
individual claims, raising the question what efficiency or benefit
is hoped to be achieved by it.

Like the individual claimants, the companies have no interest in
lengthy litigation.  However, they need to act in the best
interests of all affected stakeholders, from shareholders to
current and former employees including the claimants.  The desire
to avoid unworkable and protracted litigation is the companies'
primary motivation, independently of one another, for applying for
leave to appeal against the certification.

To suggest that the companies are acting in bad faith, or trying
to delay the resolution of this matter in seeking to appeal the
high court's certification is easy -- and wrong.  The mining
companies are working hard, in parallel to the litigation, to find
solutions to some of the many issues that are sought to be tackled
in the class action.

African Rainbow Minerals, AngloGold Ashanti, Anglo American SA,
Gold Fields, Harmony and Sibanye have formed an occupational lung
disease working group to engage with stakeholders to resolve
issues.

Continuous improvement in dust management is a priority in the
quest for zero harm, along with ensuring that current and future
employees are covered by an improved compensation system.  The
companies have already invested significant amounts in medical
screening; mine doctors have been deployed to assist in fixing the
existing statutory compensation system; and engagements are
ongoing with the government to try to put in place a more
appropriate compensation system.

Talks have been taking place for more than a year with claimants'
lawyers to see whether common ground can be reached on the
creation of a fund to compensate silicotic mine workers.  This,
they hope, will lead to an outcome that is fair to claimants and
sustainable for the companies.  It is also achievable many years
before a court process could conceivably reach conclusion.

The companies are appealing against the decision because there are
novel legal issues at stake that need to be tested, and because
the class action as certified is not an efficient way to ensure
the finalization of this case.


* Credit Union Opposes CFPB Arbitration Proposal
------------------------------------------------
Christine Hines and Sophia Huang, writing for American Banker,
report that in May, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
published its proposed rule to prohibit class action bans in
forced arbitration clauses.  If finalized, this proposal will
restore access to remedies for millions of people. Big banks and
lenders oppose this otherwise widely-supported and overdue
development.  However, the surprising reaction comes from credit
union associations.  Despite statements by credit union
representatives and empirical data proving that most credit unions
do not use forced arbitration, their lobbyists are decrying the
rule.

When agreed to by both parties after disputes arise, arbitration
can be a worthy tool.  However, when arbitration clauses and class
action bans are slipped into the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it
contracts, consumers are unilaterally stripped of their right to
seek remedies for harm in court.  Instead, they are steered into
closed-door proceedings on an individual basis where the decision-
makers have incentive to favor corporations that repeatedly appear
before them.  Moreover, most consumer financial claims don't make
it into arbitration because the amount at stake is often too low
to pursue individually.

The CFPB's proposed rule to limit these "rip-off" clauses follows
its exhaustive study that shows that forced arbitration results in
the widespread suppression of customer complaints.  It also shows
that the clauses are ubiquitous in financial services contracts,
with the notable exception of credit unions.  From the CFPB
evidence, 97% of credit unions (294 of 304) did not use
arbitration clauses in their credit card contracts.  By
comparison, more than 60% of the largest bank issuers (30 of 50)
used forced arbitration in their credit card contracts.

So what accounts for this huge difference? The answer may lie in
the unique structure and dynamic of credit unions.

Credit unions are owned collectively by their members and are
small relative to banks.  They tend to be more customer-facing and
responsive.  At a CFPB field hearing held last year,
Lou Vetere, President and CEO of Garden Savings Federal Credit
Union, described credit unions as "kinder, gentler financial
institutions."  This portrayal applies to many credit unions'
approach for handling disputes with members.

"Credit unions, generally speaking, do not have arbitration
clauses in their agreements, whether their credit card agreements
or deposit account agreements," Mr. Vetere said.  "We believe in
resolving disputes first from a member service perspective.  We do
not want to deny our members the ability to take us to court,
whether it be one-on-one or through class action.  We believe they
have that right."

Credit union associations have made similar but less equivocal
statements.  A 2012 National Association of Federal Credit Unions
letter to the CFPB said that forced arbitration clauses are "of
limited value" and credit unions do not make "significant use" of
these restrictive terms.

More evidence of credit unions' general disapproval of forced
arbitration is present on their websites.  Institutions such as
Eagle Federal Credit Union and Directions Credit Union have posted
fact sheets that warn and advise members to find service providers
that do not use forced arbitration.

Given this record of credit unions eschewing forced arbitration,
the industry's growing attacks on the CFPB proposal are jarring.
In a recent letter to Congress, the Credit Union National
Association shared the sentiment that credit unions are customer-
facing and work closely with their members.  Yet, it spins this
dynamic into one where arbitration suddenly has become an
essential tool.

CUNA claims that the CFPB rule virtually would bar arbitration. It
also said that because credit unions are member-owned, members
would sue themselves if they brought a class action suit.  Members
can remove directors from boards if they feel wronged, CUNA said.

NAFCU recently declared in a May letter to House members that
"many credit unions have found that voluntary arbitration
agreements are often the most optimal solution for resolving
disputes."

The proposed rule does not ban arbitration as the associations
assert.  Nor is it a "de facto" ban. It does not prevent credit
unions and their members from agreeing to arbitration after a
dispute.  It does not even prohibit forced arbitration outright.
The rule simply restores consumers' ability to band together in
class actions.

The credit union industry's protests about class actions are
unfounded.  As we mentioned, few credit unions force arbitration
on their members and some dissuade customers from accepting
financial products that require arbitration.  If the industry
claims about credit union structure and practice are accepted as
true, credit union members may be disincentivized from pursuing
class action claims.  On the other hand, it may be in members'
interest in certain cases to join together to address systemic
wrongdoing.

Mr. Vetere testified that in his 10 years at Garden Savings, the
institution faced litigation by its members only six times.  At a
subsequent hearing, John Rudy of Bellco Credit Union in Colorado
testified that the institution had never once been threatened with
a class action suit in his 12 years there.

Consistent with the CFPB proposal, credit unions can and should
maintain member-centric practices that preserve their customers'
post-dispute options, including their access to court.

The Supreme Court heard three cases this term, which were
anticipated by both sides to have potentially significant class
action implications.


* Data Processors Face Class Action Risk in United Kingdom
----------------------------------------------------------
Georgina A. Rankin, Esq. -- georgina.rankin@squirepb.com -- and
Caroline Egan, Esq. -- caroline.egan@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that football may not be coming home, but data protection
certainly is!

There are many issues stemming from the General Data Protection
Regulation ("GDPR"), which will impact on pension plans.

For the first time, data processors will be directly liable for
breaches of the GDPR, and the figures, quite frankly, are scary.
Breaches can carry a maximum fine of EUR20 million (or 4% of
global turnover), whichever is the higher. Ouch!

For pension trustees, as data controllers, this must surely be
good news as some of the responsibilities for compliance are
shared.  However, housekeeping issues must first be addressed, and
this could be a little painful.  More extensive obligations will
have to be included in data processing agreements.

How are data processors likely to react to increased risks that
they face?

One distinct possibility is that data processors will seek
indemnities from trustees.  The increased work associated with
compliance may also push up data processing costs. For example,
data processors will be required to keep full records of exactly
what personal data is processed, for what purposes, how and by
whom, and with whom it is shared, as well as, where feasible, the
security measures applied to it and how long it is to be kept.
Data processors also risk being sued by individuals or by consumer
organizations bringing a "class action".  In addition, the
requirement to notify compliance breaches within 72 hours means
that data controllers will need a robust data breach response plan
-- one that builds in the fact that breaches can happen at 11:00
p.m. on Friday evening or whilst the person normally responsible
for compliance is "finding himself" in Outer Mongolia.

If trustees are negotiating new contracts with service providers
that will (or might) continue after May 2018, it is important
that:

   -- the new mandatory provisions under the GDPR are built into
the contract,

   -- any limitation of liability provisions still offer the
maximum protections available to trustees,

   -- the contract sets out which party will comply with the new
mandatory record keeping requirements about the personal data that
is processed.

If these issues are not built into contracts now service providers
may resist providing some services or may seek to make additional
charges for doing so when this becomes a legal requirement.
Trustees should also consider revisions to existing contracts for
the same reasons set out above.

As a general principle, trustees should avoid accepting "standard
terms" from service providers without seeking legal advice. Don't
throw in the towel too easily -- the risks are too high.


* Recent Supreme Court Class Action Rulings Favor Plaintiffs' Bar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the
prognostications from the plaintiffs' bar were dire.  The U.S.
Supreme Court could effectively wipe out class actions with the
cases it had agreed to hear this term.

But now that the 2015-2016 term is over, some of those same
attorneys are singing a different tune.

Samuel Issacharoff, professor of civil procedure and complex
litigation at New York University School of Law, deems the top
court's slate of class action cases that concluded in June "the
term that wasn't."

"People were legitimately predicting that this term included
several cases that posed an existential threat to the class action
device," plaintiffs' attorney Deepak Gupta --
deepak@guptawessler.com -- told Bloomberg BNA.

"Not only did that not turn out to be the case, but the era where
the Supreme Court is interested in radically curbing the class
device is over," he said.  Mr. Gupta is founding principal of
Gupta Wessler PLLC, a Washington public interest law firm
representing consumers and workers.

But the plaintiffs' bar may have set themselves up for declaring a
more significant victory than they actually won by exaggerating
the risks to class actions in the first place, Archis A.
Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- a partner at defense
firm Mayer Brown in Washington, said.

"The plaintiffs' bar's over-exuberance over the results in a case
like Spokeo seem to stem from an unreasonable fear that these
cases threatened all class actions to begin with," he told
Bloomberg BNA.

Messrs. Gupta and Parasharami represented the opposing parties in
that much anticipated statutory standing case before the top
court.

"But that would have been an unrealistic expectation from either
side to begin with," Mr. Parasharami said.

Another plaintiffs' attorney, however, shrugged off
Mr. Parasharami's comments as sour grapes, calling his comments "a
fascinating attempt at damage control" on the part of the defense
bar.

"As Donald Trump has proven, it is possible to claim anything, but
the facts are the facts," Arthur Bryant, chairman of Public
Justice, a consumer advocacy organization in Oakland, Calif.,
said.

"If you go and look at the briefs they did not get anything
significant that they wanted," Mr. Bryant said.

Cases This Term

The Supreme Court heard three cases this term which were
anticipated by both sides to have potentially significant class
action implications.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (17 CLASS
80, 1/22/16), a case over unsolicited text messages, the court
revisited the issue of whether a defendant can end a class action
by "picking off" a named plaintiff by offering to settle his or
her claims.

The court held that an unaccepted offer of judgment doesn't moot a
plaintiffs' individual or class claims.

In Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 194 (2016) (17 CLASS
307, 3/25/16), a worker overtime case, the court held that
plaintiffs may use statistical evidence to prove classwide injury
as long as an individual could use that same evidence to prove his
or her own claim.

It was a win for plaintiffs, but defense attorneys say the
decision lays out a clear strategy for how plaintiffs' use of
statistics may be challenged in future class cases.

Finally, Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (17 CLASS
555, 5/27/16), asked the court to decide whether a statutory
injury alone, in this instance under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, is enough to give a plaintiff standing to pursue a class suit
in federal court.

This case was particularly closely watched because of its
implications for a host of other statutory cases and privacy
suits.

The court said a "bare procedural violation" wouldn't satisfy
concreteness, which the defense bar considers a win.

But plaintiffs' advocates consider the ruling a victory too
because it also acknowledges that intangible injuries and the
"risk of real harm" can satisfy that concreteness requirement.

Defense Overreach

Gupta said the defense bar tried to reach too far in its attempt
to cripple class actions with these cases.  They just weren't the
right vehicles, he said.

"It almost seems as if the lower courts couldn't produce enough
cert-worthy class action victories to satisfy the court's appetite
for cases that would present an opportunity to really radically
curtail class actions," he said.

Mr. Bryant also attributes the pro-plaintiff decisions to defense
overreach.  Mr. Bryant's organization filed an amicus brief on
behalf of the plaintiffs in each of the three class action cases.

The defense bar "saw that they had a court that was historically
extraordinarily antagonistic to class actions and they decided
they were going to go for everything they could," he said.

"Prior decisions asked for changes in interpretations to Rule 23
itself," Mr. Bryant said, referring to the federal rule that
governs class actions.

"The arguments being made in the cases this year went way beyond
class actions and all would have dramatically changed fundamental
areas of the law and affected lots of things other than class
actions in all sorts of ways," Mr. Bryant said.

"I think that overreach accounts significantly for the results in
the litigation," he said.

Changes After Scalia's Death

Justice Antonin Scalia's death February 13 also may account for at
least part of the court's shift in favor of class plaintiffs,
Gupta and Bryant said.

But looking at the votes in the three class cases, it's hard to
see how Scalia's voice would have made a difference in the
outcomes.

Scalia's vote doesn't appear to have been determinative in any of
the class cases decided this term, Mr. Parasharami said.

"I think that has not gone as unremarked upon as you think, given
that the evidence is right there on the face of the opinions," he
said.

Campbell-Ewald came down before Scalia's death 6-3 with Scalia
joining the dissent.

The other two came down after his death. The breakdown in Tyson
Foods was 6-2 with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion.  Spokeo was also 6-
2.

'Sign of Institutional Paralysis.'

Gupta, who represented the plaintiff in Spokeo, said that opinion
provides one piece of evidence for how the court will function
without Scalia on the bench.

The Spokeo ruling, which he called a "heavily negotiated
document," provides "a fascinating window into this new coalition
that seems to have formed on the court between Kagan, Breyer, the
Chief and Kennedy. It is a product of a committee," Gupta said.

But it wasn't designed to provide any specific guidance to the
lower courts, Mr. Gupta said.  "It's designed to make it look like
the Supreme Court is capable of reaching decisions."

Other non-class decisions this term, such as its ruling on
challenges to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, are
also proof of this.  "The court doesn't want to admit that it is
in a state of institutional paralysis, or at least four core
justices in the middle don't want to admit that."

Still, Mr. Gupta called the Spokeo decision "a stay of execution."
The court stopped short of what he viewed as the defense push to
bar all statutory damages suits.

But Mr. Parasharami, who represented Spokeo, said that broadly
shutting down statutory injury suits was never what the case was
about from the defendants' perspective.

The plaintiffs' bar views Spokeo as a win because they had
unrealistic fears about what the case was about to begin with, he
said.

"There wasn't any attempt by us to argue that intangible --
meaning non-monetary harms -- were off the table," he said.

Mr. Parasharami also said the Spokeo decision gave the defendants
exactly what they asked for: A clear statement that violation of a
statute alone is not necessarily enough to pursue a class suit.

Mr. Bryant agreed that the case was technically a win for the
defendants, but said, "I don't think the defense bar wants more
wins like this!"

Boomerang Issues Possible

Mr. Parasharami said he expects questions left open this term to
find their way back to the Supreme Court in the next few years.

Campbell-Ewald left open whether an actual tender of relief would
moot the claims.  Several lower courts have been reluctant to
accept the tender argument in subsequent cases (17 CLASS 651,
6/24/16).

But Mr. Parasharami said there is still a "glimmer of an
opportunity there to follow up on the exception."

He pointed to Roberts' dissent, saying "the Chief Justice seems to
believe strongly that in an appropriate case the tender approach
is one that could have legs."

Spokeo also leaves a number of issues to be sorted out.  He said
defendants will continue to raise questions about plaintiffs'
ability to sue because "we believe in a lot of cases, the named
plaintiff or enormous segments of the putative class are without
Article III standing."

Another issue still outstanding is one the Tyson Foods opinion
didn't address: the "no-injury" question raised initially by the
defendants, that is, whether a class can be certified when it
includes uninjured class members.

The majority opinion said it is an important question but
Tyson Foods was the wrong case for the court to resolve it,
Mr. Parasharami said.

"But Justice Kennedy has invited the issue to return to the court
in an appropriate case," he said.  The defense bar should heed
Kennedy's call to raise the "no-injury" argument in appropriate
cases, he said.

Mr. Gupta, however, called this lingering issue the Tyson Foods
"table scraps."

He said plaintiffs are less concerned about the court revisiting
that argument because the five-justice anti-class action majority
that prevailed in recent years doesn't exist anymore.

Class Battle Deferred

As for the upcoming term, the court has so far agreed to review
only one class case, Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, U.S., No. 15-457,
review granted 1/15/16 (17 CLASS 256, 3/11/16).

That case asks the court to consider the propriety of the
plaintiffs' decision to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, their
allegations that the Xbox 360 video game system is defective, in
order to guarantee their right to appeal an unfavorable class
certification decision.

Gupta said the court may reject this plaintiffs' tactic for the
same reason it rejected defendants' pick-off attempts in Campbell-
Ewald. "The court doesn't want litigants to be engaging in
gamesmanship and playing these cute little games," he said.

Aside from that case, Bryant said he doesn't expect the court to
have much of an appetite for additional class issues while the
court is down a justice. And that will likely be the reality
through next term given the upcoming presidential election and the
Senate's refusal to act on President Obama's nomination of Merrick
Garland.

"They are hesitant to take up any sticky issues because they know
there's a split," he said. "From there it depends on who is
appointed."

Professor Issacharoff agreed that the court as it is currently
composed doesn't have the same "conservative impulse to check
class actions that came from Justice Scalia."

He pointed to the large number of petitions for review that have
been denied in cases involving class action issues since Scalia's
death.

Issacharoff wrote opposition briefs on behalf of class plaintiffs
in two cases that asked the court to tighten up on
ascertainability, the test to determine class membership (17 CLASS
249, 3/11/16).

Petitions for review in both those cases were rejected.

New Epicenter: Appeals Courts

For now, it appears that the circuit courts are the effective
courts of last resort for federal issues involving class and other
cases, Bryant said.

Issacharoff agreed that the circuits are where class action law is
being developed now.

One focus of particular interest at the moment in the circuit
courts, Issacharoff said, is differing ways of handling large,
consolidated class cases.

He pointed to the Fifth Circuit's rulings in the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill litigation (16 CLASS 567, 5/22/15), and the Third
Circuit's approval of the National Football League concussion
settlement (17 CLASS 597, 6/10/16).

"The courts of appeals have become very sophisticated," he said.
"If you read between the lines of Justice Kennedy's opinion in
Tyson Foods, there's an acknowledgement that there's where the
action has shifted."


* Speier Proposes to Criminalize "Revenge Porn" Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Besson, writing for Beaumont Enterprise, reports that a
California congresswoman on July 14 was set to propose a federal
law to criminalize "revenge porn" by targeting people who
distribute the type of sexually explicit photos that once appeared
on a Texas-focused website exposing dozens of local women.

Congressman Jackie Speier's pending legislation is the first
attempt to provide recourse nationally to the mostly female
victims of revenge porn, an issue that legislators have sought to
solve while not overrunning free speech protections.

Victims, like 36-year-old Hollie Toups, have said a lack of
consequences and awareness of the problem allowed it to flourish.
Before the spate of relatively new laws in nearly three dozen
states, victims had no ability to find recourse.

"I've been in touch with other revenge porn victims, and we're all
really excited," said Ms. Toups, who recently moved from Nederland
to Austin.  "There's still other states that don't have (a law).
Being able to have one that's uniform, across the board I think is
a really good idea."

A series of state-specific revenge porn laws have been enacted
over the past few years, but victims and their advocates have
called for federal law to send a stronger message and help
prosecute cases that straddle state lines.

Revenge porn is popular shorthand for what is more accurately
described as nonconsensual pornography.

Although the legal definition of the term varies by state, it
typically addresses the distribution of private, sexually explicit
photographs or video of someone else without their permission,
regardless of whether the act is motivated by revenge.

Ms. Toups was one of at least 16 plaintiffs to file a class-action
lawsuit against the administrator of Texxxan.com and its web-
hosting company in 2013.

The website featured lewd photographs next to other personally
identifying information, according to the suit, which is pending
in Orange County.

Texas' law making "unlawful distribution or promotion of intimate
visual material" a misdemeanor went into effect in September 2015.

In 2012, just one state -- New Jersey -- prohibited the
distribution of nonconsenual porn, Ms. Toups said.  Now, 34 states
have similar laws, which vary in how they define the crime and its
penalties.

"It's an issue that has touched so many people," Ms. Toups said.
"No one is immune to it.  The victims are sisters, daughters and
sometimes mothers."

It's unclear how many people have been arrested or prosecuted
under Texas' 10-month-old law, though media reports show at least
a few arrests have been made.

A 29-year-old Woodway man was arrested in June on accusations that
he shared intimate pictures of a girlfriend on a social media
account under a fake name, the Waco-Tribune Herald reported.

And a 17-year-old Laredo man was accused last December of creating
a Facebook page and posting explicit photos of someone he knew,
according to KGNS.

An estimated 90 percent of nonconsenual pornography victims are
women, according the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, an advocacy
group that fights online abuse.  Nearly one of every two victims
were harassed or stalked online by users who saw their images,
according to the group.

Ms. Speier's office said the "scourge" has "driven some victims to
suicide."

Ms. Speier, a Democrat from San Francisco, is joined by two
Democratic and two Republican co-sponsors.  Three of the
co-sponsors are men.

The bill would make it a crime for someone to distribute porn with
"reckless disregard for the person's lack of consent to the
distribution," according to a copy of the bill.

People convicted under the proposed law would face up to five
years in prison.

Some First Amendment advocates have pushed back against the laws.
The ACLU of Texas opposed the 2015 legislation, saying it
criminalizes "common forms of speech engaged in by journalists,
artists and publishers -- not to mention a great many cell phone
users."

Ms. Speier's proposal includes exceptions related to law
enforcement, reporting of illegal activity and court orders.  It
also does not apply to people who share intimate photographs of
others who voluntarily expose themselves in public or commercial
settings.



                            *********

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  * * *