CAR_Public/160816.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 163




                            Headlines


20 20 COMMUNICATIONS: Richmond Files Bid for Class Certification
AARC LLC: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Central District California
AHMC HEALTHCARE: Fajardo Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
ALLERGAN INC: Appeals Certification of 9 Classes in "Eike" Suit
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces "White" Suit in Southern Dist. California

AM RETAIL: "Ramos" Suit Transferred from N.D. to E.D. California
AMERICAN SCREENING: Court Continues PIM's Bid to Certify Class
AMGEN INC: Court Preliminarily Approved Settlement in Onyx Suit
AMGEN INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Litigation
AMGEN INC: Settlement Reached in ERISA Litigation

ANSARA RESTAURANT: Must File "Bourne" Class Settlement by Aug. 22
ANTHEM BLUE: Bailey Seeks to Recover Plan Benefits Under ERISA
ASSERTIVE SECURITY: Skipper Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code
AUTOVEST LLC: Certification of FDCPA Class Sought in "Brown" Suit
AVID LIFE: "Scharf" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669

B.E. ATLAS: Craftwood Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Illinois
BANCORP INC: To Pay $17.5MM to Settle Class Action
BAYVIEW LOAN: Faces "Gough" Suit in Southern District Florida
BEAZER HOMES: Faces Homeowners' Class Action in Maricopa County
BLACKBERRY CORP: Appeal Filed From D.N.J. Order in "Semeran" Suit

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Cook" Files Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Vari" Suit Over Pradaxa (R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "A. Davis" Suit Over Pradaxa (R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: E. Davis Files Suit Over Pradaxa(R)

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Roco" Suit Over Pradaxa (R)
BRISTOL-MYERS: 5,400 Plavix Injury Claims Filed
BRISTOL-MYERS: Reached Deal to Settle 319 Byetta Injury Claims
BRISTOL-MYERS: 40 Abilify Injury Claims Filed
BUFFALO WILD: To Defend Against Suit by Two Former Employees

CELGENE CORPORATION: Completion of Expert Discovery in Dec. 2017
CEVA LOGISTICS: Faces "Cifuentes" Suit in S.D. California
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Defending Shareholder Suit Over Talmer Deal
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bushansky Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Sciabacucchi" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Nicholl" Class Suit Dismissed
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Livonia Employees' Retirement Sys. Suit Filed
CHISHACK HOLDINGS: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages
CIGNA CORP: Parties in "Amara" Case Continue Working on Deal
CIGNA CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Franco" Case

CLIFFS NATURAL: Treasury Case Settled and Dismissed
CLIFFS NATURAL: Rosenberg Case Settled and Dismissed
CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Certification Bid in "Hale" Pending
CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Addison" Pending
COOPER-STANDARD: Suit Over Body Sealing Products Pending

CORESITE REALTY: Calif. Class Action in Early Stages
DALLAS APPRAISAL: Sued Over Excessive Property Appraisal
DOLGENCORP LLC: Sued in Cir. Ct. Over Undisclosed Consumer Report
DOW CHEMICAL: Final Settlement Approval Expected in 2nd Half 2016
DOW CHEMICAL: No Trial Date Set in Urethane Case in Ontario

DOW CHEMICAL: Agrees to Pay $131MM to Resolve Rockly Flats Case
E Z STORAGE: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Storage Services
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Securities Case
ELI LILLY: 510 Byetta(R) Product Liability Cases Pending
ELI LILLY: Still Faces Cymbalta(R) Product Liability Litigation

ELI LILLY: 140 Cymbalta(R) Product Liability Cases Pending
ELI LILLY: 5 Prozac(R) Product Liability Litigation Pending
ERIE INDEMNITY: Beltz Plaintiffs Filed New Class Suit in W.D. Pa.
EXECUTIVE RISK: S & M Suit Seeks Damages & Insurance Coverage
EXPEDIA INC: HomeAway Defending Class Suits in Texas

EXPEDIA INC: Portland, Oregon HomeAway Litigation Dismissed
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Held on Venue Matters in Cook County Suit
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Dismissal of Firefighters' Claims Under Appeal
FEDERAL SIGNAL: 4 Hearing Loss Cases Filed in Philadelphia
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Sept. & Nov. Trial Set in Pittsburgh Cases

FEDERAL SIGNAL: 428 Firefighters Involved in NY Hearing Loss Suit
FEDERAL SIGNAL: 104 Firefighters Involved in NJ Hearing Loss Suit
FIRSTMERIT: Revised Class in Overdraft Litigation Approved
FIRSTMERIT: Mediation in Appeal in CRBC 401(k) Case on Aug. 15
FIRSTMERIT: MOU Reached in Merger litigation

FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Stein" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
GC SERVICES: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
GENMARK RESTAURANT: Faces "Oropeza" Suit in S.D. New York
GOPRO INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Camia Investment Action
GOPRO INC: Class Action Plaintiff Must Amend Complaint by Oct. 7

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Files Appeal From Ruling in "Stone" Suit
GULF INTERSTATE: "Sloane" Suit Moved From W.D. Pa. to M.D. Pa.
HAZE TOBACCO: "Chahini" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
HOME DEPOT: Appeals Ruling in "Bell" Class Suit to 9th Circuit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Appeal Pending in MERSCORP Litigation

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Trial in "Powell" Action Set for Jan. 2017
HYC CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime, "Liang" Suit Says
INVENTURE FOODS: Westmoreland County Action Stayed
INVENTURE FOODS: Received Pre-Suit by Nikravesh
INVENTURE FOODS: Received Pre-Suit by McGuiness

J.B. HUNT: Appeal in Drivers' Class Action Remains Pending
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Dismissed as Party to "Wandel" Suit
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Defending "Laufer" Class Action in Wisconsin
JS & COMPANY: Status Hearing in PIM Class Suit Set for October 6
KBR INC: Discovery Continues in Securities Case

KEYSTONE CLEARWATER: "Graham" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
KEYSTONE CLEARWATER: "Wilson" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
KINETIC FARM: C&M Suit Seeks Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
L.B. ELECTRIC: "Stewart" Suit Seeks $76,502.65 Under Lien Law
LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Has Final OK

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal on Dismissal of Data Suit Remains Pending
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Petition to Rehear Appeal Remains Pending
LENDINGTREE INC: Reached Settlement in "Dijkstra" Case
LIBERTY POWER: Motion to Certify Class in "Moore" Suit Stricken
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Appeal to 11th Circuit Remains Pending

LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Saroza" Suit in District of New Jersey
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Coburn" Suit in Southern Dist. Cal.
MDL 1952: Court Nixes Amended Deal with Indirect Buyers
MDL 2328: Court Granted Motion for Summary Judgment
MERILU PIZZA: Faces "Navarrete" Suit in S.D. New York

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sept. 2017 Trial in British Columbia Case
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Soffer" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
MOBILEIRON INC: Paid No Money in Connection with Case Dismissal
MOBILEIRON INC: Shareholder Suit Underway in California
MSC GROUP: Faces "Klein" Suit in District of Arizona

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Appeals From "Johnson" Suit Ruling to 7th Cir.
NEW YORK LIFE: Lujan Seeks 9th Cir. Review From N.D. Cal. Ruling
NEWARK, NJ: Faces Newark Cab Association Class Action
NEWSCO INT'L: Parties Seek Class Certification in "Dean" Suit
NOBLE CASING: Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought in "Noskoviak" Suit

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Defending Shareholder Action in Florida
OUTERWALL INC: Illinois Supreme Court Denied Plaintiffs' Petition
PETRO RIVER: Motions Pending in Donelson-Friend Case
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Goldberg" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PIER 1 IMPORTS: "Pedraza" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTS: Faces "Lester" Suit in S.D. Indiana
RECOLOGY LOS ANGELES: "Alvarez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
ROBERT CRANE: Faces "Dunham" Suit in Southern District Indiana
ROYAL TEN: Faces Wendell H Suit in Northern District of Georgia
SAFE AUTO: Accused by "Strong" Suit of Not Paying Proper Overtime

SERVICE CORPORATION: Samborsky Claims Sent to Arbitration
SERVICE CORPORATION: Still Defends "Moulton" Case in New Orleans
SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss "Huang" Suit Pending
SOUTHAMPTON PARK: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Certification Decision Under Appeal

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss Consumers Suit Underway
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: British Columbia Case Discontinued
STERICYCLE INC: To Restate Financials Over Class Suit Deals
SYSCO CORPORATION: "Stone" Suit Moved to E.D. California
TA OPERATING: Owes Wages and Unpaid Overtime, "Padilla" Suit Says

TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern Dist. Florida
THERANOS INC: Faces "LT" Suit Over Edison Blood Testing Issues
TMG CONSTRUCTION: "Siguencia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
TOP OF THE LINE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Southern Dist. New York
TUMI HOLDINGS: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Lamour" Suit
UNION PACIFIC: Appeals Ruling in "Serrano" Suit to Ninth Circuit
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Faces "Cohen" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
UNUM GROUP: Court Issued Final Settlement Approval Order
USA GENERAL: Faces "Berrios" Suit in District of New Jersey

VALIDITY RESEARCH: Faces "Alan" Suit in Southern Dist. Florida
VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Falk" Suit in Eastern District New York
VANGUARD NATURAL: Response to Merger Suit Due Aug. 22
VANGUARD NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Debt Exchange Case Due Aug. 19
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Vivendi SA Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit

W.W. GRAINGER: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Filed
WARDLAW CONSULTING: Whiteman Challenges Payment Scheme Under FLSA
WARREN RESOURCES: Execs Face Investor's Class Suit
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Faces "Does" Suit in Western Dist. Wash.
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Recovered $4 Million from Insurers

WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING: Colque Seeks to Class Certification
WILLBROS GROUP: Denies Remaining Allegations in Class Suit
WORLD WRESTLING: Bagwell Seeks to Certify Class of Wrestlers


                            *********


20 20 COMMUNICATIONS: Richmond Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Richmond moves to conditionally certify collective action
and facilitate notice to potential class members in the lawsuit
entitled JAMES RICHMOND, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-06051
(N.D. Ill.).

Pursuant to the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Plaintiff seeks permission to send, under Court supervision,
notice to all Field Sales Managers employed by the Defendant, who
serviced the Defendant's Samsung account within the last three
years.  The Plaintiff asserts that he only seeks to facilitate
notice to the limited class of FSMs, who were paid salary plus
bonuses and who earned less than $100,000 per year for any period
of their employment within the statute of limitations, and who
were not paid full and proper overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

Through their respective counsel, both parties have agreed,
subject to the Court's approval and desire for briefing, on this
proposed agreed briefing schedule:

   -- the Defendant's Response is due on September 6, 2016; and

   -- the Plaintiff's Reply is due on September 27, 2016.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z2Wz30ME

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


AARC LLC: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Central District California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against AARC LLC. The case is captioned
Brian Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AARC LLC, doing business as Advance
America, and Does 1-100, and each of them, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-cv-01679-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. Virginia A. Phillips.

AARC offers financial services in the nature of check cashing,
deferred deposits, and financial overdraft protection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          324 S Beverly Drive Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


AHMC HEALTHCARE: Fajardo Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO FAJARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v.  AHMC Healthcare, Inc., a California
corporation; AHMC, Inc., a California corporation; AHMC Garfield
Medical Center L.P., a California corporation; AHMC Monterey Park
Hospital, L.P., a California corporation; AHMC Anaheim Regional
Medical Center, L.P., a California corporation; AHMC Greater El
Monte Community Hospital, L.P., a California corporation; AHMC San
Gabriel Valley Medical Center, L.P., a California corporation;
AHMC Whittier Hospital Medical Center, L.P., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC629297 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 2, 2016), seeks to recover
monetary damages, including full restitution as a result of
Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and/or unfair business practices,
pursuant to the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay all wages
due to illegal time rounding, and failed to timely furnish
accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (023) 549 9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
          E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          21900 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992 2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5525 32-3
          E-mail: Emil@davtyanlaw.com


ALLERGAN INC: Appeals Certification of 9 Classes in "Eike" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan, Inc., et al., file with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit a petition seeking permission to appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled CHARLENE EIKE, SHIRLEY
FISHER, JORDAN PITLER, and ALAN RAYMOND, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN USA,
INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; ALCON LABORATORIES, INC.; ALCON
RESEARCH LTD.; FALCON PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; BAUSCH AND LOMB
INCORPORATED; PFIZER INC.; MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK, SHARP & DOHME
CORP.; and PRASCO, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-01141-SMY-DGW (S.D.
Ill.).

The petition seeks to appeal an order certifying nine statewide
classes of Illinois and Missouri consumers against 11 Defendants
accused of "unfairness" in connection with the sale of 33
prescription eye drops used to treat glaucoma.  The Defendants-
Petitioners contend that the District Court's memorandum and order
of July 25, 2016, which is entered without a hearing, is erroneous
in its analysis and outcome, and presents the kinds of coercive
risks and important issues warranting an immediate appeal under
Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Defendants-Petitioners assert that the medications at issue
are FDA-approved and have been prescribed for years (sometimes
decades) to treat millions of glaucoma patients safely and
effectively.  Yet the four Plaintiffs seek to use the Illinois and
Missouri consumer fraud statutes to cut eye drop volumes roughly
in half by requiring redesigned medications using a redesigned
dropper with a narrower and sharper tip, despite the fact that the
patients, who depend on these medications are primarily elderly
and have difficulty instilling even the existing drops, the
Defendants-Petitioners argue.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 10,
2016, Judge Staci M. Yandle certified these classes:

          -- Allergan Illinois Class (Class Representative:
             Charlene Eike)

          -- Allergan Missouri Class (Class Representatives:
             Jordan Pitler, Alan Raymond)

          -- Alcon Illinois Class (Class Representatives:
             Charlene Eike, Shirley Fisher)

          -- Alcon Missouri Class (Class Representatives: Jordan
             Pitler, Alan Raymond)

          -- B&L Illinois Class (Class Representative: Shirley
             Fisher)

          -- B&L Missouri Class (Class Representative: Jordan
             Pitler)

          -- Pfizer Missouri Class (Class Representative: Alan
             Raymond)

          -- Merck Illinois Class (Class Representative: Shirley
             Fisher)

          -- Prasco Illinois Class (Class Representative: Shirley
             Fisher)

Judge Yandle also appointed Richard S. Cornfeld and John G. Simon
to serve as class counsel.  A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's
July 25, 2016 memorandum and order is available at
https://is.gd/1C9h82 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs-Respondents Charlene Eike, Shirley Fisher, Jordan
Pitler and Alan Raymond are represented by:

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          Kevin M. Carnie, Jr., Esq.
          SIMON LAW FIRM PC
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com
                  rkeane@simonlawpc.com
                  kcarnie@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Kevin P. Green, Esq.
          Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI PC
          2227 South State Route 157
          P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
          E-mail: kevin@ghalaw.com
                  Mark@ghalaw.com
                  tom@ghalaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Wolfman, Esq.
          BRIAN WOLFMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          600 New Jersey Avenue NW, Room 312
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 661-6582
          E-mail: bswolfman@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1720
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5799
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

Defendants-Petitioners Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon Research
Ltd., and Falcon Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., are represented by:

          Francis A. Citera, Esq.
          Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456-8400
          Facsimile: 312) 456-8435
          E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com
                  citeraf@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Lori G. Cohen, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          3333 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (678) 553-2100
          Facsimile: (678) 553-2212
          E-mail: cohenl@gtlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners Allergan, Inc., Allergan USA, Inc.,
Allergan Sales, LLC, and Bausch & Lomb Incorporated are
represented by:

          James P. Muehlberger, Esq.
          Lori A. McGroder, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          2555 Grand Blvd.
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: jmuehlberger@shb.com
                  lmcgroder@shb.com

               - and -

          Troy A. Bozarth, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC
          130 North Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-0184
          Facsimile: (618) 656-1364
          E-mail: troy.bozarth@heplerbroom.com

Defendants-Petitioners Pfizer Inc. is represented by:

          Robyn E. Bladow, Esq.
          Austin C. Norris, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          E-mail: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com
                  austin.norris@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Martin L. Roth, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: martin.roth@kirkland.com

Defendants-Petitioners Merck & Co., Inc., Merck, Sharp & Dohme
Corp., and Prasco, LLC are represented by:

          Stephen G. Strauss, Esq.
          Randy J. Soriano, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2020
          Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
          E-mail: sgstrauss@bryancave.com
                  rjsoriano@bryancave.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces "White" Suit in Southern Dist. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ally Financial Inc. The case is
captioned Nieysha White, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ally Financial Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01969-L-BLM (S.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. M. James Lorenz.

Ally Financial, previously known as GMAC Inc., is an American bank
holding company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


AM RETAIL: "Ramos" Suit Transferred from N.D. to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AM Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-04316, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California - (Sacramento). The Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01842-MCE-KJN to the proceeding. The
assigned District Judge is Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

AM Retail operates retail stores in the United States. Its stores
offer men and women outerwear, as well as fashion accessories,
such as handbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard David Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235 7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235 7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Prescott Wayne Littlefield, Esq.
          Thomas Andrew Kearney, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 473 1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473 1919
          E-mail: pwl@kearneylittlefield.com
                  tak@kearneylittlefield.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephanie Anne Sheridan, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
          Telephone: (415) 781 7900
          Facsimile: (415) 781 2635
          E-mail: stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com


AMERICAN SCREENING: Court Continues PIM's Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 9, 2016, in the case styled
Podiatry In Motion, Inc. v. American Screening, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-07938 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to enter and
continue the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
granted.  The Court also ordered that notice of motion date of
August 17, 2016, is stricken and no appearances are necessary on
that date.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KP3mqjHz


AMGEN INC: Court Preliminarily Approved Settlement in Onyx Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs and the Onyx director
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed a notice of settlement
with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Mateo for an immaterial amount. On July 26, 2016, the court
preliminarily approved the settlement.


AMGEN INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that on July 20, 2016, the parties agreed to
settle the Amgen Inc. securities class action case for an
immaterial amount. The settlement remains subject to court
approval.


AMGEN INC: Settlement Reached in ERISA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the ERISA litigation on
June 27, 2016, have reached an agreement in principle to settle
this case for an immaterial amount. The settlement remains subject
to court approval.


ANSARA RESTAURANT: Must File "Bourne" Class Settlement by Aug. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David M. Lawson dismissed as moot the parties' pending
motions for conditional certification of a collective action,
amended motion to dismiss and motion for protective order in the
lawsuit styled CHELSEA BOURNE v. ANSARA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,
CLINTON ROBIN, INC., VICTOR L. ANSARA, RED ROBIN OF MICHIGAN, ANN
ARBOR ROBIN, INC., COMMERCE TOWNSHIP ROBIN, INC., DELTA ROBIN,
INC., DETROIT ROBIN, INC., FLINT ROBIN, INC., GRANDVILLE ROBIN,
INC., HOLLAND TOWNSHIP ROBIN, INC., KENTWOOD ROBIN, INC., LIVONIA
ROBIN, INC., MADISON HEIGHTS ROBIN, INC., MAUMEE ROBIN, INC.,
NORTON SHORES ROBIN, INC., NOVI ROBIN, INC., PITTSFIELD ROBIN,
INC., PORTAGE ROBIN, INC., ROSEVILLE ROBIN, INC., SOUTHGATE ROBIN,
INC., TOLEDO ROBIN, INC., TROY ROBIN, INC., and WESTLAND ROBIN,
INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-10332-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.).

On August 8, 2016, the parties notified the Court that they had
reached a final settlement of the individual and collective action
claims in this case, and they indicated that they intend to submit
a motion for approval of the collective action settlement
forthwith.  The Court, therefore, dismissed as moot the parties'
pending motions and set a deadline for the filing of a motion for
approval of the settlement agreement.

Judge Lawson ordered the parties to file a joint motion for
approval of the collective action settlement by August 22, 2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4TzY9j3d


ANTHEM BLUE: Bailey Seeks to Recover Plan Benefits Under ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
AURORA BAILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INS. CO. dba ANTHEM
BLUE CROSS; BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA dba ANTHEM BLUE CROSS, Case
No. 3:16-cv-04439 (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants breached the terms of their benefit plans and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to pay plan
benefits to the Plaintiff and the proposed class members.

Ms. Bailey is a 22-year-old woman with anorexia nervosa and major
depressive disorder.  She brought the Case under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as it involves claims for
employee benefits under employee benefit health plans regulated
and governed under ERISA.

Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Company and Blue Cross
of California are California corporations with their headquarters
in the County of Los Angeles.  They operate under the trade name
"Anthem" or "Anthem Blue Cross."  Blue Cross operates under the
trade name "Anthem" or "Anthem Blue Cross."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
          J. David Oswalt, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net
                  doswalt@kantorlaw.net

               - and -

          Kathryn M. Trepinski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KATHRYN M. TREPINSKI, A LAW CORPORATION
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 201
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 201-0022
          Facsimile: (866) 201-2251
          E-mail: ktrepinski@trepinskilaw.com


ASSERTIVE SECURITY: Skipper Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS SKIPPER, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASSERTIVE SECURITY SERVICES AND
CONSULTING GROUP, INC., a California corporation; MARYAM AYAM, an
individual; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC629102 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, and damages and all other relief allowable,
including meal period premium wages and rest period premium wages,
pursuant to the Labor Code.

The complaint says Defendants employed policies and procedures
which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees did not
receive any premium wages to compensate them for workdays that
they did not receive all legally required rest periods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496 5818
          Facsimile: (818) 700 9973


AUTOVEST LLC: Certification of FDCPA Class Sought in "Brown" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Brown asks the Court to enter an order determining that the
action titled SCOTT BROWN on behalf of himself and the class
defined herein v. AUTOVEST LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-07969 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed as a class action pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class,
defined as:

     All (a) individuals in one of the applicable jurisdictions
     (b) to whom a letter was sent on behalf of Autovest, LLC to
     collect a debt (c) which debt was an auto retail installment
     contract or lease debt on which the last payment or activity
     had occurred more than four years prior to the letter, (d)
     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.

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xr6H9Fos

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. 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
                  fgreene@edcombs.com


AVID LIFE: "Scharf" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
-------------------------------------------------
Thadeaus G Scharf, III, on behalf of himself and all other
Arkansas residents similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Avid Life
Media, Inc., an Ontario Corporation, and Avid Dating Life, Inc.,
doing business as Ashley Madison, an Ontario corporation, and Noel
Biderman, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00225, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Eastern, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (St. Louis). The Missouri Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-01260-JAR to the proceeding.

The Scharf case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation On December 9, 2015. Plaintiffs in these
actions similarly allege, on behalf of similar putative nationwide
or state classes, that Avid failed to adequately secure their
personal and financial information; marketed a "Full Delete
Removal" service that did not, in fact, purge user account
information from the Ashley Madison database; and made extensive
use of artificial intelligence "bots" and other mechanisms to
mimic fake users (specifically, female users) on the Ashley
Madison website in order to induce actual (predominantly male)
users to make purchases. In its December 9, 2015 order, the MDL
panel selected the Eastern District of Missouri as the transferee
district for the litigation. The district is a geographically
central and accessible forum for the nationwide litigation. The
Eastern District of Missouri also is relatively convenient for
Defendants, which are located in Toronto, Canada. The first-filed
action is pending in the district, and the district has the
support of both Plaintiffs and Defendants. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The
lead case is 4:15-md-02669-JAR.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles D. Davidson, Esq.
          David Louis Gershner, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Linam, Esq.
          DAVIDSON LAW FIRM, LTD.
          Post Office Box 1300
          Little Rock, AR 72203-1300
          Telephone: (501) 374 9977
          E-mail: skipd@dlf-ar.com
                  davidg@dlf-ar.com
                  stephaniealinam@gmail.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON VINES PLLC
          2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 372 1300
          Facsimile: (888) 505 0909
          E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379 1700
          E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com


B.E. ATLAS: Craftwood Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craftwood Lumber Company, an Illinois corporation, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. B.E.
ATLAS COMPANY, INC., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2016 CH 946, was removed from the Circuit Court of Lake
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois - (Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-07865 to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Jorge
L. Alonso.

B.E. Atlas is a wholesale hardware store offering plumbing
supplies, electrical supplies, hand and power tools, locks,
painting and cleaning supplies.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bart Thomas Murphy, Esq.
          Heather Lynn Maly, Esq.
          ICE MILLER LLP
          2300 Cabot Drive, Suite 455
          Lisle, IL 60532
          Telephone: (630) 955 6392
          E-mail: bart.murphy@icemiller.com
                  Heather.Maly@icemiller.com


BANCORP INC: To Pay $17.5MM to Settle Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, that on July
27, 2016 the Company and all other individually-named defendants
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
("Settlement Agreement") with respect to the consolidated class
action securities litigation filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware under the caption of In re The
Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 14-cv-0952 (SLR)
(District of Delaware).  Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, Bancorp will pay $17.5 million to the plaintiffs as
full and complete settlement of the litigation.  All amounts paid
by the Company will be fully funded by the Company's insurance
carriers.  All terms of the Settlement Agreement are subject to
court approval.


BAYVIEW LOAN: Faces "Gough" Suit in Southern District Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. The
case is captioned Laurie Gough, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bayview Loan
Servicing, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-14327-KAM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 2, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. Kenneth A. Marra.

Bayview Loan operates as a mortgage loan servicer and debt
collector in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          Desmond Law Firm, P.C.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234 5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234 5231
          E-mail: jacobson@verobeachlegal.com
                  lwd@verobeachlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary M. Freedman, Esq.
          Tabas, Freedman, Soloff,
          Brown & Rigali, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, PH
          Miami, FL 33132


BEAZER HOMES: Faces Homeowners' Class Action in Maricopa County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on July 7, 2016 against the Company in
Maricopa County Arizona Superior Court on behalf of all homeowners
in Arizona that purchased homes from the Company that included a
certain roof underlayment. The complaint alleges various
construction defects, but principally claims that the roof
underlayment used in these homes is susceptible to leaks and was
not installed in accordance with best practices. The monetary
damage the plaintiff seeks has not been quantified. The Company
believes these allegations are without merit and that class action
treatment is inappropriate.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself against these claims, and believes at this time that
any potential exposure is not probable nor able to be estimated.


BLACKBERRY CORP: Appeal Filed From D.N.J. Order in "Semeran" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Russ Semeran filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Russ Semeran v. Blackberry Corporation, Case No.
2-15-cv-00750 (D. N.J.).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case arose out of
the alleged design and manufacturing defects of Blackberry Smart
Cellular Telephones.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the
contact application randomly merges contacts store in the phone,
thereby, rending users unable to make calls by retrieving their
contacts through the device, the photo application fails to permit
the user to manage the size and resolution of photographs for the
purposes of emailing, and fail to support widely utilized
applications, such as Yahoo Calendar.

The appellate case is captioned as Russ Semeran v. Blackberry
Corporation, Case No. 16-3318, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant RUSS SEMERAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Marcus Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
                  kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Joseph Harrison, Esq.
          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          110 Series Highway 35, 2nd Floor
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (888) 239-4410
          Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
          E -mail: josephharrisonesq@gmail.com
                   nycotlaw@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee BLACKBERRY CORP, a Delaware Corporation, is
represented by:

          Leah Kelman, Esq.
          HERRICK FEINSTEIN LLP
          One Gateway Center, 22nd Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 274-2004
          E-mail: lkelman@herrick.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Levine, Esq.
          HERRICK FEINSTEIN LLP
          210 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 452-3800
          Facsimile: (973) 274-6404
          E-mail: rlevine@herrick.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Cook" Files Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
-------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE J. COOK v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6070341-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Cty., August 5, 2016),
alleges that as a direct and proximate result of using Pradaxa(R),
the Plaintiff suffered an uncontrollable bleeding injury and other
injuries.

Pradaxa(R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.  Patients with atrial
fibrillation have an increased risk of stroke.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the risks of bleeding associated with the use of
Pradaxa(R) greatly outweighed its benefits, if any.

Boehringer is a Delaware corporation which has its principal place
of business located in Ridgefield, Connecticut.  Boehringer
International is a foreign corporation with its principal place of
business located in Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.  The Defendants
manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, promoted,
labeled, tested and sold Pradaxa(R) (dabigatran etexilate
mesylate).

The Defendants had previously been involved in Consolidated
Pradaxa Litigation (MDL No. 2385), which was consolidated in
United States District Court of the Southern District of Illinois
on August 17, 2012.  On May 28, 2014, the Defendants announced
that they had entered into a Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA")
with "Eligible Plaintiffs," in which they would pay $650 million
to settle those plaintiffs' claims against them.  On November 12,
2105, the MDL Court ordered that all the documents produced by the
Defendants in the MDL 2385 discovery proceedings, and the work
product of that case's Plaintiffs Steering Committee, be destroyed
and not shared with the Plaintiff or any other persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 715
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 890-0711
          Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
          E-mail: mccarley@fnlawfirm.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARNOLD R. CASTILLO AND LINDA CASTILLO v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL
GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6070343-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford
Cty., August 5, 2016), arises from injuries allegedly caused by
Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa(R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.  Patients with atrial
fibrillation have an increased risk of stroke.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the risks of bleeding associated with the use of
Pradaxa(R) greatly outweighed its benefits, if any.

Plaintiff Linda Castillo is married to the Plaintiff Arnold R.
Castillo.  Thus, she contends she has a loss of consortium claim.
The Plaintiffs allege that as a direct and proximate result of
using Pradaxa(R), Mr. Castillo suffered an uncontrollable bleeding
injury and other injuries.

Boehringer is a Delaware corporation which has its principal place
of business located in Ridgefield, Connecticut.  Boehringer
International is a foreign corporation with its principal place of
business located in Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.  The Defendants
manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, promoted,
labeled, tested and sold Pradaxa(R) (dabigatran etexilate
mesylate).

The Defendants had previously been involved in Consolidated
Pradaxa Litigation (MDL No. 2385), which was consolidated in
United States District Court of the Southern District of Illinois
on August 17, 2012.  On May 28, 2014, the Defendants announced
that they had entered into a Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA")
with "Eligible Plaintiffs," in which they would pay $650 million
to settle those plaintiffs' claims against them.  On November 12,
2105, the MDL Court ordered that all the documents produced by the
Defendants in the MDL 2385 discovery proceedings, and the work
product of that case's Plaintiffs Steering Committee, be destroyed
and not shared with the Plaintiff or any other persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 715
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 890-0711
          Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
          E-mail: mccarley@fnlawfirm.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Vari" Suit Over Pradaxa (R)
--------------------------------------------------------
ADELAIDE VARI, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NEXT OF KIN AND AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AMERICO VARI, DECEASED v.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BOEHRINGER
INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6070317-S (Conn.
Super. Ct., Hartford Cty., August 5, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants failed to adequately disclose to patients that there
was no drug, agent, or means to reverse the anticoagulation
effects of Pradaxa(R), and that such irreversibility could have
permanently disabling, life-threatening, and fatal consequences.

Pradaxa(R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.  Patients with atrial
fibrillation have an increased risk of stroke.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the risks of bleeding associated with the use of
Pradaxa(R) greatly outweighed its benefits, if any.

Plaintiff Adelaide Vari is the spouse of the Plaintiff's decedent,
Americo Vari.  She alleges that Mr. Vari's uncontrollable brain
hemorrhage was caused by his use of Pradaxa(R), and ultimately
contributed to his death.

Boehringer is a Delaware corporation which has its principal place
of business located in Ridgefield, Connecticut.  Boehringer
International is a foreign corporation with its principal place of
business located in Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.  The Defendants
manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, promoted,
labeled, tested and sold Pradaxa(R) (dabigatran etexilate
mesylate).

The Defendants had previously been involved in Consolidated
Pradaxa Litigation (MDL No. 2385), which was consolidated in
United States District Court of the Southern District of Illinois
on August 17, 2012.  On May 28, 2014, the Defendants announced
that they had entered into a Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA")
with "Eligible Plaintiffs," in which they would pay $650 million
to settle those plaintiffs' claims against them.  On November 12,
2105, the MDL Court ordered that all the documents produced by the
Defendants in the MDL 2385 discovery proceedings, and the work
product of that case's Plaintiffs Steering Committee, be destroyed
and not shared with the Plaintiff or any other persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
          MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 232-6333
          Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
          E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "A. Davis" Suit Over Pradaxa (R)
------------------------------------------------------------
ADALEE DAVIS v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6070340-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Cty., August 5, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants overstated the efficacy of Pradaxa(R)
with respect to preventing stroke and systemic embolism, among
other things.

Pradaxa(R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.  Patients with atrial
fibrillation have an increased risk of stroke.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the risks of bleeding associated with the use of
Pradaxa(R) greatly outweighed its benefits, if any.

Boehringer is a Delaware corporation which has its principal place
of business located in Ridgefield, Connecticut.  Boehringer
International is a foreign corporation with its principal place of
business located in Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.  The Defendants
manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, promoted,
labeled, tested and sold Pradaxa(R) (dabigatran etexilate
mesylate).

The Defendants had previously been involved in Consolidated
Pradaxa Litigation (MDL No. 2385), which was consolidated in
United States District Court of the Southern District of Illinois
on August 17, 2012.  On May 28, 2014, the Defendants announced
that they had entered into a Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA")
with "Eligible Plaintiffs," in which they would pay $650 million
to settle those plaintiffs' claims against them.  On November 12,
2105, the MDL Court ordered that all the documents produced by the
Defendants in the MDL 2385 discovery proceedings, and the work
product of that case's Plaintiffs Steering Committee, be destroyed
and not shared with the Plaintiff or any other persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 715
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 890-0711
          Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
          E-mail: mccarley@fnlawfirm.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: E. Davis Files Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
---------------------------------------------------------
ELMA DAVIS and JAMES DAVIS v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL
GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6070316-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford
Cty., August 5, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to warn
emergency room doctors, surgeons and other critical care medical
professionals that unlike generally-known measures taken to treat
and stabilize bleeding in users of warfarin, there was no
effective agent to reverse the anticoagulation effects of
Pradaxa(R) and, therefore, no effective means to treat and
stabilize patients, who experience uncontrolled bleeding while
taking Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa(R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.  Patients with atrial
fibrillation have an increased risk of stroke.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the risks of bleeding associated with the use of
Pradaxa(R) greatly outweighed its benefits, if any.

According to the complaint, Ms. Davis was prescribed one capsule
of Pradaxa(R) 150 mg twice per day in October 2012 for treatment
of atrial fibrillation, which she continued to take day-to-day as
instructed by her physician.  Subsequently, she suffered a severe
gastrointestinal bleed on August 8, 2014, causing her to be
hospitalized for 25 days.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
uncontrollable bleeding she experienced was caused and worsened by
her use of Pradaxa and caused injury, as well as pain and
suffering during her treatment for her injuries.

Boehringer is a Delaware corporation which has its principal place
of business located in Ridgefield, Connecticut.  Boehringer
International is a foreign corporation with its principal place of
business located in Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.  The Defendants
manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, promoted,
labeled, tested and sold Pradaxa(R) (dabigatran etexilate
mesylate).

The Defendants had previously been involved in Consolidated
Pradaxa Litigation (MDL No. 2385), which was consolidated in
United States District Court of the Southern District of Illinois
on August 17, 2012.  On May 28, 2014, the Defendants announced
that they had entered into a Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA")
with "Eligible Plaintiffs," in which they would pay $650 million
to settle those plaintiffs' claims against them.  On November 12,
2105, the MDL Court ordered that all the documents produced by the
Defendants in the MDL 2385 discovery proceedings, and the work
product of that case's Plaintiffs Steering Committee, be destroyed
and not shared with the Plaintiff or any other persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael S. Werner, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 466-6500
          Facsimile: (516) 466-6665
          E-mail: mwerner@yourlawyer.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Roco" Suit Over Pradaxa (R)
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH,
in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District.

The case is captioned Nilda Roco, Individually, as next of kin and
as personal representative of the Estate of Norberto Roco,
deceased, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants.

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

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

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

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

               - and -

          Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
          NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
          2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 774 2258
          Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
          E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: 5,400 Plavix Injury Claims Filed
-----------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and
certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of
individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming
personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*.
Currently, over 5,400 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well
as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in
state and federal courts in various states including California,
New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi's
motion to establish a multi-district litigation (MDL) to
coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix product
liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. It is not
possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these
lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Reached Deal to Settle 319 Byetta Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Amylin, a former
subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product
liability litigation related to Byetta. To date, there are over
500 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of almost 2,400 active
plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury
plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other
beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has
agreed in principle to resolve over 319 of these claims. The
majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who
allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta, primarily
pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases,
claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases were
pending in Federal Court in San Diego in an MDL or in a
coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles
(JCCP). In November 2015, the defendants' motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption was granted in both the MDL
and the JCCP. The plaintiffs in the MDL have appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the JCCP plaintiffs
have appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial
number of claims involving Byetta and any additional liability to
Amylin with respect to Byetta is expected to be shared between the
Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict
the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential
impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: 40 Abilify Injury Claims Filed
---------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Otsuka) are co-defendants in
product liability litigation related to Abilify. Plaintiffs allege
Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive gambling and other
impulse control disorders. There have been approximately 40 cases
filed in state and federal courts. A petition seeking to establish
an MDL has been filed by the parties.


BUFFALO WILD: To Defend Against Suit by Two Former Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the class action lawsuit by two of former
employees.

The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees
(the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New York
state law against us in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York. The claim alleges that we have a
policy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensation
in part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligible for
tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation of the
FLSA and New York state law. We intend to vigorously defend this
lawsuit. We believe a loss is reasonably possible, but we are
currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of loss."


CELGENE CORPORATION: Completion of Expert Discovery in Dec. 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that completion of fact
discovery and expert discovery in a class action lawsuit is
scheduled for August 1, 2017 and December 15, 2017, respectively.

The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB)
filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that
we violated various state antitrust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive
supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories
(Barr) allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide
active pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell
samples of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories so
that those companies can conduct the bioequivalence testing
necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to
market generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedly
bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and
Natco Pharma Limited in order to allegedly delay those companies
from obtaining approval for proposed generic versions of
THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a
putative class of third party payers, is seeking injunctive relief
and damages."

"On February 3, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint. On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence")
filed a similar putative class action making similar allegations.
Both IUB and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of third party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and
damages. Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to
dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in
Providence's complaint. A supplemental motion to dismiss
Providence's state law claims was filed on April 20, 2015. On
October 30, 2015, the court denied our motion to dismiss on all
grounds.

"Celgene filed its Answer to the IUB and Providence complaints on
January 11, 2016. The completion of fact discovery and expert
discovery is scheduled for August 1, 2017 and December 15, 2017,
respectively. No trial date has been set. We intend to vigorously
defend against IUB's claims."


CEVA LOGISTICS: Faces "Cifuentes" Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. The
case is styled William Cifuentes, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ceva Logistics
U.S., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01957-H-DHB (S.D.
Cal., Aug. 3, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Marilyn L. Huff.

CEVA Logistics is one of the leading supply chain companies. CEVA
provides end-to-end design, implementation and operational
solutions in freight management, contract logistics, distribution
and transportation management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421 7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421 7105
          E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Defending Shareholder Suit Over Talmer Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend the case, In re Talmer Bancorp Shareholder
Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB (E.D. Mich).

The deadline to file lead plaintiff motions is August 16, 2016.

Chemical Financial has agreed to acquire Talmer Bancorp Inc. in a
cash and stock transaction valued at $1.1 billion.  On February
22, 2016, two putative class action and derivative complaints were
filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, by
individuals purporting to be a shareholder of Talmer. The actions
are styled Regina Gertel Lee v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2016-151642-CB and City of Livonia Employees'
Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation et al., Case
No. 2016-151641-CB.

These complaints purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of
Talmer against the individual defendants, and individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against Talmer and
Chemical. The complaints allege, among other things, that the
directors of Talmer breached their fiduciary duties to Talmer's
shareholders in connection with the merger by approving a
transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that
undervalues Talmer and includes preclusive deal protection
provisions, and that Chemical allegedly aided and abetted the
Talmer directors in breaching their duties to Talmer's
shareholders.

The complaints also allege that the individual defendants have
been unjustly enriched. Both complaints seek various remedies on
behalf of the putative class (consisting of all shareholders of
Talmer who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant).
They request, among other things, that the Court enjoin the merger
from being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms,
direct the Talmer directors to exercise their fiduciary duties,
rescind the merger agreement to the extent that it is already
implemented, award the plaintiff all costs and disbursements in
each respective action (including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees), and grant such further relief as the court deems
just and proper.

The City of Livonia plaintiff amended its complaint on April 21,
2016 to add additional factual allegations, including but not
limited to allegations that Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. served as
a financial advisor for the proposed merger despite an alleged
conflict of interest, that Talmer's board acted under actual or
potential conflicts of interest, and that the defendants omitted
and/or misrepresented material information about the proposed
merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the
proposed merger. Talmer, Chemical and the individual defendants
all believe that the claims asserted against each of them in the
lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
these lawsuits. These two cases were consolidated as In re Talmer
Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB, per an
order entered on May 12, 2016.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bushansky Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the "Bushansky"
lawsuit filed in federal district court has been voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, without
prejudice.

On March 22, 2016, an additional putative class action and
derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland
County, Michigan, by an individual purporting to be a shareholder
of Talmer, styled Stephen Bushansky v. Gary Torgow et al. Case No.
2016-152112-CB. This action contained similar allegations, claims,
and requests for relief as the complaints filed in the Lee and
City of Livonia lawsuits discussed above. The Bushansky lawsuit
was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants,
without prejudice, on April 18, 2016.

On April 27, 2016, Stephen Bushansky filed a new putative class
action complaint in the United State District Court for Eastern
District of Michigan, styled Stephen Bushansky v. Talmer Bancorp
In. et.al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11511. This lawsuit alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and named Talmer, Chemical, and several individuals
as defendants. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the
Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures
in the preliminary Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the
proposed merger. The Federal Bushansky lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, without
prejudice, on June 20, 2016.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Sciabacucchi" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case, Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Chemical
Financial Corporation et al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11261 (E.D.
Mich.), filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on Aug. 5, 2016.

District Judge Thomas L. Ludington on Aug. 1 entered an Order for
Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute.  The Show Cause Response was supposedly due
by Aug. 15.

Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a complaint was
filed on April 6, 2016, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan by another purported shareholder
of Talmer, styled Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Chemical Financial
Corporation et al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11261.  Mr. Sciabacucchi
purports to bring this action "on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated."  This lawsuit alleges violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, naming
Talmer, Chemical, and several individuals as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the
Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger.
The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among
other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction,
rescind the transaction if it is consummated or award rescissory
damages, order the Talmer directors to file a revised Registration
Statement, declare that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, award the plaintiff all costs
associated with bringing the action (including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as
the court deems just and proper. Talmer, Chemical and the
individual defendants all believe that the claims asserted against
each of them in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Nicholl" Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on April 25, 2016,
a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan by another purported shareholder of
Talmer, styled Kevin Nicholl v. Chemical Financial Corporation et
al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11482. The plaintiff names Talmer,
Chemical, and several individuals as defendants. This lawsuit was
styled as a class action and derivative action, and alleged breach
of fiduciary duties as well as violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Nicholl lawsuit
was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants,
with prejudice, on June 20, 2016.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Livonia Employees' Retirement Sys. Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a complaint was
filed on June 16, 2016, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan by a purported Talmer
shareholder, styled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System
v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et al., Docket No. 2:16-cv-
12229. The plaintiff purports to bring the action "individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated," and requests
certification as a class action. This lawsuit alleges violations
of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the
Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger.
The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among
other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction
unless and until additional information is provided to Talmer's
shareholders, declare that the Defendants violated the securities
laws in connection with the proposed merger, award compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and that the
Court grant such other relief as it deems just and proper. Talmer,
Chemical, and the individual defendants all believe that the
claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


CHISHACK HOLDINGS: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcial Martinez individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Chishack Holdings LLC Willowbrook Series and
John Bobak, Case No. 1:16-cv-07897 (N.D. Ill., August 5, 2016),
seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees their earned
overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendants operate Chishack, a restaurant located in
Willowbrook, Illinois.  The Individual Defendant is the owner of
Chishack.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CIGNA CORP: Parties in "Amara" Case Continue Working on Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
Amara cash balance pension plan litigation continue to work
towards obtaining agreement around differences in interpretation.

In December, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The
plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's
cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that
the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-
conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit);
and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or
inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998;
(2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3)
required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-
conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits
under the post-conversion cash balance formula.  The Second
Circuit upheld this decision.  From 2008 through the present, this
case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in
the original District Court order being largely upheld.  In 2015,
the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method
for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class
members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of
calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members.
The court order left several aspects of the calculation of
additional plan benefits open to interpretation.  The parties
continue to work towards obtaining agreement around differences in
interpretation.  The timing of the resolution of these differences
remains uncertain.  Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to
comply with the agreed-upon interpretation of the District Court's
order and the benefits will begin to be paid.  The Company's
reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at June 30, 2016
based on a calculation consistent with the Company's
interpretation of the court order.


CIGNA CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Franco" Case
--------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company will
continue to vigorously defend against the case, Franco v.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.

In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative
nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly
underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the
Company's competitors.  These actions were consolidated into
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure
under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the
present.  Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or
have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by
the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for
lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New
Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim.  In
January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied
separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class
of subscriber plaintiffs.  The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's
request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling.  As a
result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs
only.

In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment.  In July 2014,
the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in
favor of the Company, including the class certification decision,
to the Third Circuit.

On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by
members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual
plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust
claims.  However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier
dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims.  The Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position.


CLIFFS NATURAL: Treasury Case Settled and Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit by the Department of the Treasury of the
State of New Jersey and Its Division of Investment have settled
the case for $84 million and the case was dismissed on June 30,
2016.

In May 2014, alleged purchasers of our common shares filed suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
us and certain former officers and directors of the Company. The
action is captioned Department of the Treasury of the State of New
Jersey and Its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources
Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-1031. As amended, the action asserted
violations of the federal securities laws based on alleged false
or misleading statements or omissions during the period of March
14, 2012 to March 26, 2013, regarding operations at our Bloom Lake
mine in Quebec, Canada, and the impact of those operations on our
finances and outlook, including sustainability of the dividend,
and that the alleged misstatements caused our common shares to
trade at artificially inflated prices.

The parties settled this suit for $84 million and the case was
dismissed on June 30, 2016. The settlement amount has been funded
by insurance and will have no impact on our Statements of
Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Operations and resulted in the
reductions of the Insurance coverage receivable and Insured loss
in the Statement of Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Position by $84 million.


CLIFFS NATURAL: Rosenberg Case Settled and Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
Rosenberg class action have settled this suit for $10 million and
the case has been dismissed.

In June 2014, an alleged purchaser of the depositary shares issued
by Cliffs in a public offering in February 2013 filed a putative
class action, which is captioned Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural
Resources Inc., et al., No. CV-14-828140 (Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
Court of Common Pleas). As amended, the suit asserted claims
against us, certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company, and several underwriters of the offering, alleging
disclosure violations in the offering documents regarding
operations at our Bloom Lake mine, the impact of those operations
on our finances and outlook, and about the progress of our former
exploratory chromite project in Ontario, Canada.

The parties settled this suit for $10 million and the case was
dismissed on April 14, 2016. The settlement amount has been funded
by insurance and will have no impact on our Statements of
Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Operations and resulted in the
reduction of the Insurance coverage receivable and Insured loss in
the Statement of Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Position by $10 million.


CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Certification Bid in "Hale" Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has not yet
ruled on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification in the
Hale Litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas
Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on
September 18, 2015 and has not yet ruled.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Addison" Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has not yet
ruled on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification in the
Addison Litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class consists
of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit
seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and damages
based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed to either pay
royalties due to these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them
less than required because of the alleged practice of improper
below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production
deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas
Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on
September 18, 2015 and has not yet ruled.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


COOPER-STANDARD: Suit Over Body Sealing Products Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend against a class action complaint.

On March 30, 2016, a putative class action complaint alleging
conspiracy to fix the price of body sealing products used in
automobiles and other light-duty vehicles was filed in Ontario
against numerous automotive suppliers, including Cooper-Standard
Holdings Inc., CSA U.S. and Cooper-Standard Automotive Canada
Limited ("CS Defendants") and Nishikawa Cooper LLC, a joint
venture in which the Company holds a 40% interest. Plaintiffs
purport to be indirect purchasers of body sealing products
supplied by the CS Defendants and/or the other defendants during
the relevant period. The plaintiffs seek recovery of damages
against all defendants in an amount to be determined, punitive
damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
related costs and expenses of the litigation.

The Company believes the claims asserted against the CS Defendants
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these
claims. Further, the Company does not believe that there is a
material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to
these claims.


CORESITE REALTY: Calif. Class Action in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit in California is in the early stages.

The Company said, "On July 9, 2015, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, against us, alleging various
employment law violations related to overtime, meal and break
periods, minimum wage, timely payment of wages, wage statements,
payroll records and business expenses. The lawsuit is in the early
stages and we have filed a responsive pleading generally denying
the allegations."

CoreSite is engaged in the business of ownership, acquisition,
construction and operation of strategically located data centers
in eight of the largest and fastest growing data center markets in
the United States, including the Northern Virginia (including
Washington D.C.), New York and San Francisco Bay areas, Chicago,
Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Denver.


DALLAS APPRAISAL: Sued Over Excessive Property Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
NORTHWOOD HILLS VILLAGE JV, Ltd. (Northwood Hills Shopping
Center), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL, the
Defendants, Case No. DC-16-09319 (D. Tex., Aug. 2, 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 Plaintiff 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 $12,513,410, an
amount in excess of the appraised value required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal is responsible for appraising all real
and business personal property within Dallas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, 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
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: Sued in Cir. Ct. Over Undisclosed Consumer Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW DEBINDER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOLGENCORP, LLC d/b/a DOLLAR
GENERAL, the Defendant, Case No. CAGE-16-014155 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Aug. 2, 2016), seeks to recover statutory damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, equitable relief, and other appropriate relief
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The Defendant violated the FCRA by taking adverse employment
action that could have been based on undisclosed consumer report
information against Plaintiff and other putative class members,
without first providing Plaintiff and other affected class members
with a copy of the pertinent consumer report, and without
providing them a reasonable opportunity to respond to the
information in the report and discuss it with Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOW CHEMICAL: Final Settlement Approval Expected in 2nd Half 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company expects the
District Court to issue final approval of the settlement in the
Urethane class action litigation in the second half of 2016.

On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a
previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of
polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate,
toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products.
The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive
investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice
from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential
antitrust violations involving these products without indictments
or pleas.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the above described DOJ
antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District
Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court
certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year
period from 1999 through 2004 ("plaintiff class").

In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the
District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant,
the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20,
2013, the jury returned a damages verdict of approximately $400
million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the
District Court under applicable antitrust laws, less offsets from
other settling defendants, resulting in a judgment entered in July
2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company appealed this
judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Tenth
Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), and on September 29, 2014, the
Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the District Court
judgment. On October 14, 2014, the Company filed a petition for
Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (collectively the "Rehearing
Petition") with the Court of Appeals, which was denied on November
7, 2014.

On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking
judicial review by the Supreme Court and requesting that it
correct fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion. There
were several compelling reasons why the Supreme Court should have
granted the Writ Petition and the Company believed it was likely
that the District Court judgment would be vacated. Specifically,
the Company's position was that the Tenth Circuit decision
violated the law as expressed by the Supreme Court as set out in
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) ("Wal-
Mart") and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013)
("Comcast"). The Tenth Circuit also did not follow accepted law
from other federal circuits on dispositive case issues, including
legal precedent from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth
and D.C. Circuit Courts. Finally, the Company argued that the
erroneous law applied by the Tenth Circuit was not supported by
any other federal circuit court. In April 2015, six amici filed
amicus briefs in support of the Company's Writ Petition. On June
8, 2015, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of
certiorari in another case, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, PEG,
et al., ("Tyson Foods") (Supreme Court No. 14-1146), which
presented an issue core to the questions presented in the
Company's Writ Petition: whether class-wide damages can be
determined by simply applying the average injury observed in a
sample. The Company's case was considered by the Supreme Court in
conference on June 11, 2015. On June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court
issued its decisions from its conference and did not rule on the
Company's Writ Petition. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was not
listed for further consideration by the Supreme Court at its
weekly conferences.

The Company was advised that this meant that the Supreme Court was
withholding further consideration of the Company's Writ Petition
while it considered the Tyson Foods case on the merits. As a
result, the Company did not expect any further action on its Writ
Petition until sometime in 2016. The Company believed that the
Supreme Court accepted Tyson Foods for the compelling reasons also
advanced by the Company in its Writ Petition and that the Supreme
Court would issue an opinion in Tyson Foods that was favorable to
the Company's case. Accordingly, on August 14, 2015, the Company
filed an amicus brief in Tyson Foods supporting Tyson Foods'
position.

On February 26, 2016, the Company announced a proposed settlement
under which Dow would pay the plaintiff class $835 million, which
includes damages, class attorney fees and post-judgment interest.
The agreement is conditioned upon the Supreme Court holding Dow's
Writ Petition in abeyance and subsequent approval of the class
settlement by the District Court. The proposed settlement will
resolve the $1.06 billion judgment and any subsequent claim for
attorneys' fees, costs and post-judgment interest against Dow.

As a result, in the first quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a
loss of $835 million, included in "Sundry income (expense) - net"
in the consolidated statements of income and reflected in the
Performance Materials & Chemicals segment. On March 7, 2016, the
Supreme Court approved the joint motion to hold Dow's Writ
Petition in abeyance. On April 27, 2016, the District Court
provided preliminary approval of the settlement.

On May 11, 2016, the Company moved the $835 million settlement
amount into an escrow account (per the terms of the Settlement
Agreement) where it will remain until the District Court issues
final approval of the settlement, which is expected to occur in
the second half of 2016. At June 30, 2016, the settlement
liability was classified as "Accrued and other current
liabilities" and the payment made to the escrow account was
classified as "Other current assets" in the Company's consolidated
balance sheets.

Dow changed its risk assessment on this matter as a result of new
growing political uncertainties due to events within the Supreme
Court, including Justice Scalia's death, and the increased
likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for businesses involved in
class action lawsuits. Of particular importance was the fact that
Justice Scalia had written the majority opinions in both the Wal-
Mart and Comcast cases. The Company continues to believe that it
was not part of any conspiracy and the judgment was fundamentally
flawed as a matter of class action law.


DOW CHEMICAL: No Trial Date Set in Urethane Case in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that there are two separate
but inter-related Urethane matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada.

In March 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario,
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Company filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in
March 2014, which was subsequently denied.  This matter is
currently in the preliminary pre-trial stage, but no trial date
has been set.

With a certified class in the Ontario case, the Quebec case is
effectively rendered moot and, therefore, the parties have agreed
that it will not be prosecuted independently of any future outcome
in the Ontario case.

The Company has concluded it is not probable a loss has been
incurred and, therefore, a liability is not recorded with respect
to these matters. The Company has determined that any possible
loss on these matters is not material to the Company's results of
operations and cash flows as the Company's exposure is
significantly less than the Class Action Lawsuit and Opt-Out Cases
due to: (i) the limited exposure period based upon other known
settlements relating to the Canadian Matters, (ii) antitrust
verdicts in Canada are not trebled, and (iii) the Canadian cases
are based on different legal theories and different applicable
law.


DOW CHEMICAL: Agrees to Pay $131MM to Resolve Rockly Flats Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Dow, Rockwell
International Corporation ("Rockwell") and the class action
plaintiffs have entered into a settlement agreement for $375
million, of which $131 million will be paid by Dow and $244
million will be paid by Rockwell.

The Company and Rockwell (collectively, the "defendants") were
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 1990 on behalf of
property owners ("plaintiffs") in Rocky Flats, Colorado, who
asserted claims for nuisance and trespass based on alleged
property damage caused by plutonium releases from a nuclear
weapons facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE")
(the "facility"). Dow and Rockwell were both DOE contractors that
operated the facility - Dow from 1952 to 1975 and Rockwell from
1975 to 1989. The facility was permanently shut down in 1989.

In 1993, the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado ("District Court") certified the class of property
owners. The plaintiffs tried their case as a public liability
action under the Price Anderson Act ("PAA"). In 2005, the jury
returned a damages verdict of $926 million. Dow and Rockwell
appealed the jury award to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
("Court of Appeals") which concluded the PAA had its own injury
requirements, on which the jury had not been instructed, and also
vacated the District Court's class certification ruling, reversed
and remanded the case, and vacated the District Court's judgment
(Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127, 1133 (10th Cir.
2010)). The plaintiffs argued on remand to the District Court that
they were entitled to reinstate the judgment as a state law
nuisance claim, independent of the PAA. The District Court
rejected that argument and entered judgment in favor of the
defendants (Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp, 13 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (D.
Colo. 2014)). The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals,
which reversed the District Court's ruling, holding that the PAA
did not preempt the plaintiffs' nuisance claim under Colorado law
and that the plaintiffs could seek reinstatement of the prior
nuisance verdict under Colorado law, and remanded for additional
proceedings, including consideration of whether the District Court
could recertify the class (Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 790 F.3d
1088 (10th Cir. 2015)).

Dow and Rockwell continued to litigate this matter in the District
Court and in the United States Supreme Court. On May 18, 2016,
Dow, Rockwell and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement
agreement for $375 million, of which $131 million will be paid by
Dow and $244 million will be paid by Rockwell. The DOE authorized
the settlement pursuant to the PAA and the nuclear hazards
indemnity provisions contained in Dow and Rockwell's contracts. As
a result, the Company expects to be fully indemnified by the DOE
for the settlement amount.

At June 30, 2016, the Company had a liability of $130 million
related to this matter, included in "Other noncurrent obligations"
in the consolidated balance sheets and expects to make the
settlement payment to the plaintiffs no later than July 28, 2017.
The Company also recorded a receivable of $131 million related to
this matter, included in "Noncurrent receivables" in the
consolidated balance sheets, and expects to receive its
indemnification payment in 2017.


E Z STORAGE: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Storage Services
----------------------------------------------------------
JILL GISSELERE, an Individual, the Plaintiff, v. E Z STORAGE AND
DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC629229 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 2, 2016), seeks to recover damages Plaintiff
suffered from all of her personal property put into storage at the
facility owned and/or operated by the Defendants.

The Defendants have refused to return to Plaintiff the possessions
she kept at the storage facility where she rented space to store
her possessions, and have refused to allow her access to those
possessions.

EZ Storage is engaged in the rental of storage units, the sale of
goods pertaining to storage, and the sale of services pertaining
to the management and operation of storage units through and at
storage facilities located in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kriss Halpern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KRISS HALPERN
          1021 Fifth Street, Suite 209
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 458 9340
          Facsimile: (310) 395 4876
          E-mail: krisshalpernll@gmail.com


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Edison International and Southern California Edison Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2016, that a federal court has granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit with an opportunity
for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

In November 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its Chief
Executive Officer and Treasurer by an Edison International
employee, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA"). The complaint purports to be filed on
behalf of a class of Edison International employees who were
participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested in the
Edison International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and June
24, 2015. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties because they knew or should have known that
investment in the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent
because the price of Edison International common stock was
artificially inflated due to Edison International's alleged
failure to disclose certain ex parte communications with CPUC
decision-makers related to the San Onofre OII.

In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiffs to
amend their complaint.


ELI LILLY: 510 Byetta(R) Product Liability Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly And Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is named as
a defendant in approximately 510 Byetta product liability lawsuits
in the U.S. involving approximately 890 plaintiffs.

Approximately 90 of these lawsuits, covering about 470 plaintiffs,
are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los
Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 415 lawsuits, covering about
415 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which
are coordinated in a multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The remaining approximately five lawsuits, representing about five
plaintiffs, are in various state courts. Approximately 465 of the
lawsuits, involving approximately 700 plaintiffs, contain
allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs'
cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer).

The federal and state trial courts granted summary judgment in
favor of us and co-defendants on the claims alleging pancreatic
cancer; those rulings are being appealed by the plaintiffs.

"We are aware of approximately 10 additional claimants who have
not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for
pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. We believe these lawsuits and
claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously," the Company said.


ELI LILLY: Still Faces Cymbalta(R) Product Liability Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly And Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in October 2012, the
Company was named as a defendant in a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Saavedra et al v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving
Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all
persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta,
asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of four
states, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and
sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various
alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment
with Cymbalta.

In December 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to
file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification,
which was denied.

Plaintiffs filed a second motion for certification under the
consumer protection acts of New York and Massachusetts. The
district court denied that motion for class certification in July
2015. The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiffs are
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


ELI LILLY: 140 Cymbalta(R) Product Liability Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly And Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has been
named in approximately 140 lawsuits involving approximately 1,470
plaintiffs filed in various federal and state courts alleging
injuries arising from discontinuation of treatment with Cymbalta.
Counsel for plaintiffs in the federal court proceedings filed a
petition seeking to have then-filed cases and an unspecified
number of future cases coordinated into a federal Multidistrict
Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

In December 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) denied the plaintiffs' petition for creation of an MDL.
Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently filed a second petition seeking
MDL consolidation, which petition was denied by the JPML in
October 2015. There have been approximately 40 individual and
multi-plaintiff cases filed in California state court.  Most of
those cases have been centralized in a California Judicial Counsel
Coordination Proceeding pending in Los Angeles.

The first individual product liability cases were tried in August
2015 and resulted in defense verdicts against four plaintiffs. The
plaintiff in one of those cases is appealing the verdict. The
other plaintiffs in those cases will not be appealing the
judgment.

"We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are
prepared to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.


ELI LILLY: 5 Prozac(R) Product Liability Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly And Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is named as
a defendant in approximately five U.S. lawsuits primarily related
to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or
contributed to birth defects in the children of women who ingested
the drug during pregnancy.

"We are aware of approximately 400 additional claims related to
birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these
lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend
against them vigorously," the Company said.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Beltz Plaintiffs Filed New Class Suit in W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Beltz plaintiffs
have filed a new action labeled as a "Verified Derivative And
Class Action Complaint" in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members
Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and
Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen;
C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas
W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert
C. Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of the
Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The
individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the
then-current Directors of Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the
same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan
lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders
of the Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of the Exchange
itself. Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant
in the Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February 10,
2014, the court entered an order granting Indemnity's motion to
intervene and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors' motion
to dismiss; granting in part the Directors' motion to dismiss;
referring the matter to the Department to decide any and all
issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other relief sought in
the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the case without
prejudice. To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the
Department's review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan
action would proceed before the Department and any final and non-
appealable determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan
action will be applied to the Beltz action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On
November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on
Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the
parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of
Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing was
completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April 29,
2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requested that
the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015.
The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for
dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8,
2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and
judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it
lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the
District Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to
the Department was not a final, appealable order.

On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled
as a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S.
Sullivan, and Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal
Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj
Ahlmann; John T. Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman,
Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh;
Patricia A. Goldman; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C.
Scott Hartz; Samuel P. Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III;
Martin J. Lippert; George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J.
Mehl; Henry N. Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth
E. Schofield; Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A.
Hirt Vorsheck; Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "New
Beltz" lawsuit). The individual defendants are all present or
former Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors").

The allegations of the New Beltz lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges. The New Beltz lawsuit alleges
that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges was improper because, for among other reasons, that
retention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and
an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity,
breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants,
conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants
Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck,
and Samuel P. Black, III, at the expense of the Exchange. The New
Beltz lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment be
entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; declaring plaintiffs as representatives of the Class
and plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the
conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to,
Defendants retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges; enjoining defendants from continuing to retain the
Service Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding
compensatory and punitive damages and interest.

Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses
and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations and
requests for relief in the New Beltz lawsuit. Directors have
advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend against
the claims in the New Beltz lawsuit and have sought
indemnification and advancement of expenses from the Company in
connection with the New Beltz lawsuit.


EXECUTIVE RISK: S & M Suit Seeks Damages & Insurance Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
S & M CATERERS, INC. d/b/a LEONARD'S OF GREAT NECK, the Plaintiff,
v. EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY INC., the Defendant, Case No.
605877/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 2, 2016), seeks insurance
coverage under the Power Source Employment Practices Liability
Coverage. The Liability Coverage issued by Executive Risk provides
coverage for any Loss resulting from any Employment Claim during
the Policy Period of October 5, 2013 to October 5, 2014, for a
Wrongful Act. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover compensatory and
consequential damages, and gratuities.

Executive Risk offers property and casualty insurance services.
The company was formerly known as Executive Re Indemnity Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles A. Stewart, III, Esq.
          STEW ART OCCHIPINTI, LLP
          One Exchange Plaza
          55 Broadway, Suite 1501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 239 5500
          E-mail: cstewart@somlaw.com


EXPEDIA INC: HomeAway Defending Class Suits in Texas
----------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending putative class action litigation against HomeAway.

On March 15, 2016, a putative class action suit was filed against
HomeAway.com, Inc. related to its recent implementation of a
service fee. Arnold v. HomeAway.com, Inc., Case No. 1-16-cv-00374
(U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). The putative
class is comprised of homeowners that list their properties on
HomeAway's websites. The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway
for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law.

On April 15, 2016, a similar putative class action suit was filed
against HomeAway.com, Inc., which also related to the
implementation of a service fee. Seim v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-00479 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas).
The putative class is comprised of homeowners that list their
properties on HomeAway's websites. The complaint asserts claims
against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and other state
consumer protection statutes.

On June 23, 2016, a similar putative class action was filed
against HomeAway.com, Inc., also relating to the implementation of
a service fee. Brickman v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00733
(U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). The putative
class is comprised of homeowners from nine different states that
list their properties on HomeAway's websites. The complaint
asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, restitution, and violations of
various state consumer protection statutes.


EXPEDIA INC: Portland, Oregon HomeAway Litigation Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Portland, Oregon
HomeAway Litigation, the federal district court issued on June 7,
2016, an order granting the HomeAway defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed all of the plaintiff city's claims, some with
prejudice and some without.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Held on Venue Matters in Cook County Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has scheduled a
further status hearing regarding venue matters for August 10,
2016, in the hearing loss litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was
filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed
a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which
was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company sought further review
by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme
Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme
Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this
case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered
for these plaintiffs, which has resulted in final dismissal of
these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During
a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March
11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motions to amend
their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will now
file motions to certify classes in these cases.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification. The Company also has filed motions to dismiss cases
involving firefighters located outside of Cook County based on
improper venue. Plaintiffs have requested discovery from the
Company related to these venue motions. The Court has scheduled a
further status hearing regarding venue matters for August 10,
2016.

The Company also has been sued on hearing loss litigation outside
of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have
involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and
through 2009, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits involving
71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were
dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company.
Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four
cases, the Company paid nominal sums to obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed
in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these
plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's
siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company
negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the
amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08
million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial,
involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred
in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company
as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The
third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter
plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a
defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all
plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials,
the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining
filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other
firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the
Philadelphia cases.

On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the law firm of the
attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of
1,125 claimants the firm represented (the "Claimants") and who had
asserted product claims against the Company (the "Claims"). Three
hundred eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the
Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company
pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to
settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of
the law firm in connection with its representation of the
Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement
Payment: (i) each Claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims
had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a "Release"),
(ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a
plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit with
prejudice, (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the Claimants
identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle
their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company and (iv)
the law firm had to withdraw from representing any Claimants who
did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed
lawsuits.

If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less than 100%
of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release,
the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the percentage of
Claimants who did not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a
payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was
based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided
by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims
and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused
any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered
into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its
expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience,
uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Dismissal of Firefighters' Claims Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal regarding the dismissal of claims filed by out-
of-state firefighters.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and
involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of
these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving
these 2012 Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and
involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties
agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set
for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff.

In January 2015, plaintiffs' attorneys filed two new complaints in
the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of
approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast
majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are
located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these
cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District
of Columbia, was removed to federal court in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims in
this case on May 31, 2016.

With respect to claims of other out-of-state firefighters involved
in these two cases, the Company moved to dismiss these claims as
improperly filed in Pennsylvania. The Court granted this motion
and dismissed these claims on November 5, 2015. During August
through December 2015, another nine new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases involve a total of 193 firefighters, most of whom are
located outside of Pennsylvania.

The Company again moved to dismiss all claims filed by out-of-
state firefighters in these cases as improperly filed in
Pennsylvania. On May 24, 2016, the Court granted this motion and
dismissed these claims. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal
regarding this decision.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: 4 Hearing Loss Cases Filed in Philadelphia
----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that four new cases were
filed on May 13, 2016, in Philadelphia state court, involving a
total of 55 Philadelphia firefighters who live in Pennsylvania.
The next trial in Philadelphia is scheduled to begin on September
12, 2016 and will involve four Philadelphia firefighters who filed
lawsuits in 2012.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Sept. & Nov. Trial Set in Pittsburgh Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the first trials of the
caes by Pittsburgh firefighters were scheduled to occur in May,
September and November 2016.

During April through July 2013, cases were filed in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff
firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the
Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court
dismissed claims of 55 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. The
first trials of these Pittsburgh firefighters were scheduled to
occur in May, September and November 2016. Each trial will involve
eight firefighters.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment regarding strict liability claims asserted by all
plaintiff firefighters involved in the initial trial scheduled for
May 2016. The Company also has moved to dismiss remaining
negligence claims asserted by these firefighters. It is
anticipated that the Court will rule on this motion sometime
during July 2016 and the next trial involving any Pittsburgh
firefighters will occur during November 2016.

During March 2014, an action also was brought in the Court of
Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61
firefighters. This case likewise involves various defendants in
addition to the Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions,
33 Erie County firefighter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: 428 Firefighters Involved in NY Hearing Loss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a total of 428
firefighters are currently involved in hearing loss cases filed in
the state of New York.

On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193
Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Erie County. Several product
manufacturers, including the Company, have been named as
defendants in these cases. All of the cases filed in Erie County,
New York have been removed to federal court in the Western
District of New York.

During February 2015, a lawsuit involving one New York City
firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, New York County. The plaintiff named the Company as
well as several other parties as defendants. That case has been
transferred to federal court in the Northern District of New York.
Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss this case during May
2016. The Company also is aware that a lawsuit involving eight New
York City firefighters was filed in New York County, New York, on
April 24, 2015. The Company has not yet been served in that case.
During November 2015 through January 2016, 28 new cases involving
a total of 227 firefighters were filed in various counties in the
New York City area. A total of 428 firefighters are currently
involved in cases filed in the state of New York.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: 104 Firefighters Involved in NJ Hearing Loss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a total of 104
firefighters are currently involved in cases filed in New Jersey.

During November 2015, the Company was served with a complaint
filed in Union County, New Jersey state court, involving 34 New
Jersey firefighters. This case has been transferred to federal
court in the District of New Jersey. During January through May
2016, eight additional cases were filed in various New Jersey
state courts. Most of the firefighters in these cases reside in
New Jersey and work or worked at New Jersey fire departments.

From 2007 through 2009, firefighters brought hearing loss claims
against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and Kings
County, New York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed
prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings
County, New York that were dismissed upon the Company's motion in
2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court affirmed the trial
court's dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs' attorneys have
threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to
vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.


FIRSTMERIT: Revised Class in Overdraft Litigation Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that an order approving the stipulated
revised class has been entered in the overdraft litigation.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against the Corporation and the Bank. The
complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged
re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been
filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without
prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County
seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive
damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a
proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to
the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.

In September 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed
in part and reversed in part the trial court's class certification
order, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
consideration, in particular with respect to the class definition.

On October 9, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the
Eleventh District Court of Appeals an application for
reconsideration and application for consideration en banc.

On November 20, 2013, the Eleventh District denied those
applications.

On December 4, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed a notice of
appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, and on January 3, 2014, they
filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a memorandum in support of the
Court's exercising its jurisdiction and accepting the appeal.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the
Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction.

On August 6, 2014, the Bank and Corporation filed a motion asking
the trial court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims
subject to an arbitration agreement. That motion has been fully
briefed and is awaiting a decision by the court.

On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to a revised class
definition (without affecting the pending motion to stay). An
order approving the stipulated revised class was entered on June
3, 2016.


FIRSTMERIT: Mediation in Appeal in CRBC 401(k) Case on Aug. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that an appellate court has scheduled a
mediation conference for August 15, 2016, in the CRBC 401(k)
Litigation.

Participants in the Citizens Republic Bancorp 401(k) Plan filed a
lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in 2011, alleging that Citizens and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by offering Citizens common stock as an investment
alternative in the Plan during periods when it was imprudent to do
so and by failing to adequately monitor fiduciaries responsible
for administering the Plan. The lawsuit, captioned Kidd v.
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-11709,
asserts claims for monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a
purported class of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan who
held Citizens stock in their Plan accounts during the period from
April 17, 2008 to "the present."

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in November 2015,
and the defendants have filed a motion that the complaint be
dismissed. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted by Court on
May 29, 2016. Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal and the
appellate court has scheduled a mediation conference for August
15, 2016.


FIRSTMERIT: MOU Reached in Merger litigation
--------------------------------------------
FirstMerit said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a merger litigation have
filed with the court a Memorandum of Understanding notifying it
that the parties have agreed to a preliminary settlement in full
of the pending litigation.

Five putative derivative and class action lawsuits have been filed
by separate shareholders of FirstMerit Corporation ("FirstMerit")
relating to the proposed merger between Huntington Bancshares,
Inc. ("Huntington") and FirstMerit.  Two of those lawsuits were
filed in the Summit County Common Pleas Court, Ohio:  W. Patrick
Murray v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, Case No. CV-2016-02-
0917, was filed on February 11, 2016; and The Robinson Family
Trust v. Paul Greig, Case No. CV-2016-02-0981, was filed on
February 17, 2016 (the "State Court Lawsuits").

On April 14, 2016, the State Court Lawsuits were consolidated.
The State Court Lawsuits consolidated complaint alleges that the
individual directors of FirstMerit breached their fiduciary duties
by approving a proposed merger that allegedly undervalues
FirstMerit, allegedly provides the directors with benefits not
afforded FirstMerit shareholders, and allegedly includes deal
protection devices to ensure that the proposed merger will be
consummated.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that the directors
approved a Registration Statement on S-4, filed on March 4, 2016,
(the "Registration Statement") that omits material information
about the proposed merger.  It also alleges that Huntington aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  It seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of
the proposed merger, an award of fees and costs, and other
equitable relief.

The other three lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio:  Wojno v. FirstMerit
Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-461, was filed on February 26, 2016;
Wilkinson v. FirstMerit Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-723, was filed on
March 23, 2016; and Hafner v. Greig, Case No 5:16-cv-762, was
filed on March 28, 2016 (the "Federal Court Lawsuits").

On April 8, 2016, the parties to the Federal Court Lawsuits filed
a stipulation that, among other things, would consolidate the
actions and designate a consolidated complaint.  The Motion to
Consolidate was granted on May 9, 2016. The stipulation remains
pending.  Each complaint in the Federal Court Lawsuits makes
similar allegations to the State Court Lawsuits consolidated
complaint, and also alleges that the directors violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by approving the Registration Statement.
The Hafner complaint also alleges that Huntington violated Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with the
Registration Statement.  Each complaint in the Federal Court
Lawsuits seeks similar relief to the State Court Lawsuits
consolidated complaint.

On April 13, 2016, the defendants in the State Court Lawsuits
filed a motion to stay the State Court Lawsuits pending the
resolution of the parallel Federal Court Lawsuits.  The judge in
the State Court Lawsuits granted defendant's motion to stay on May
20, 2016. All further action in the State Court cases is stayed
pending resolution of the consolidated Federal Court action.

On or about June 8, 2016 the parties to the Federal Court
litigation filed with the court a Memorandum of Understanding
notifying it that the parties have agreed to a preliminary
settlement in full of the pending litigation. The agreement, in
substance, requires defendants to make additional disclosures to
SEC filings prior to shareholder votes scheduled for June 13,
2016.

In good faith defendants made such agreed upon disclosures prior
to the vote. The parties also agreed to conduct confirmatory
discovery as part of the overall settlement agreement. The parties
are currently finalizing the scope of the discovery and setting
dates for limited document production and depositions. The Federal
Court has stayed all further action in the case pending submission
of a final proposed settlement agreement.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Stein" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus LLP. The case is
titled Ruth Stein, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Forster & Garbus LLP, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04342 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2016).

Forster & Garbus is a full service New York Law Firm concentrating
on creditor's rights law since 1970.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GC SERVICES: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited Partnership.
The case is captioned Josef Kalmenson, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. GC
Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04340 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2016).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


GENMARK RESTAURANT: Faces "Oropeza" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Genmark Restaurant Inc. The case
is captioned Miguel Oropeza, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, Genmark Restaurant Inc., doing
business as Barking Dog Luncheonette; Braho Restaurant Corp.,
doing business as Barking Dog Luncheonette; Mark Weissman; Eugene
Garcia; Evangelia Cassimos; and Spiros Kasimis; the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06159 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2016).

Genmark is a restaurant located in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GOPRO INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Camia Investment Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that an amended complaint was filed in the
Camia Investment Class Action on June 21, 2016 and an amended
complaint was expected to be filed by July 28, 2016 in the Majesty
Palms Class Action.

The Company said, "Beginning on January 13, 2016, the first of
four purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of our officers. Similar
complaints were filed on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016 and
February 19, 2016."

"Each of the complaints purports to bring suit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased our publicly traded securities between
July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for the first three complaints
and between November 26, 2014 and January 13, 2016 for the last
filed complaint. Each complaint purports to allege that defendants
made false and misleading statements about our business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and each seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, fees and costs.

"On April 21, 2016, the court consolidated the complaints and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the first three
actions (Camia Investments Class Action); the court allowed the
fourth action to proceed separately as to the period November 26,
2014 through July 20, 2015 (Majesty Palms Class Action) and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action. An
amended complaint was filed in the Camia Investment Class Action
on June 21, 2016 and an amended complaint is expected to be filed
by July 28, 2016 in the Majesty Palms Class Action."

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras and accessories.
GoPro's products are sold globally through retailers, wholesale
distributors and on the Company's website. The Company's global
corporate headquarters are located in San Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Class Action Plaintiff Must Amend Complaint by Oct. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has sustained the demurrer
dismissing a class action complaint with leave to amend and
ordered plaintiff to file any amended complaint by October 7,
2016.

The Company said, "On January 25, 2016, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain
of our current and former directors and executive officers and
underwriters of our IPO. The complaint purports to bring suit on
behalf of shareholders who purchased our stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with our IPO and purports to allege claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other
relief."

"A similar complaint was filed on May 13, 2016, and consolidated
on June 7, 2016.

"Defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the
consolidated action. On July 13, 2016, the Court sustained the
demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend and ordered
plaintiff to file any amended complaint by October 7, 2016."

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras and accessories.
GoPro's products are sold globally through retailers, wholesale
distributors and on the Company's website. The Company's global
corporate headquarters are located in San Mateo, California.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Files Appeal From Ruling in "Stone" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit captioned Megan Stone, et al.
v. GEICO, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-05383-BHS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma.

The appellate case is captioned as Megan Stone, et al. v. GEICO,
et al., Case No. 16-80102, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Respondents MEGAN STONE and CHRISTINE CAROSI,
individually and as the representatives of all persons similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M HANSEN, PS
          1703A Dock Street
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO
CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO SECURE INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO ADVANTAGE
INSURANCE COMPANY and GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY are
represented by:

          Stephanie L. Bloomfield, Esq.
          Andrea H. McNeely, Esq.
          GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
          1201 Pacific Avenue
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 620-6500
          E-mail: sbloomfield@gth-law.com
                  amcneely@gth-law.com

               - and -

          Kimberly Anne Demarchi, Esq.
          Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          201 E. Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595
          Telephone: (602) 262-5728
          Facsimile: (602) 262-5747
          E-mail: kdemarchi@lrrc.com
                  dgoldfine@lrrc.com


GULF INTERSTATE: "Sloane" Suit Moved From W.D. Pa. to M.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS SLOANE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GULF INTERSTATE FIELD SERVICES, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01208, was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Williamsport). The Middle District assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-
01571-MWB to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Matthew W.
Brann.

According to the complaint, the Defendant devised and implemented
a plan to increase its earnings and profits by fostering a scheme
of securing work from Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania Class without
paying overtime compensation for all hours worked.

Gulf Interstate is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulf Interstate
Engineering Company (GIEC). The GIEC Enterprise provides a broad
range of services to the oil and gas industry. It employs
thousands of workers in many states and countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

         Annette A. Idalski, Esq.
         Peter N. Hall, Esq.
         Fletcher B. Howard, Esq.
         CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA
         WHITE WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY
         191 Peachtree Street, N.E., 34th Floor
         Atlanta, GA 30303
         Telephone: (404) 658 5386
         Facsimile: (404) 658 5387
         E-mail: annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com
                 peter.hall@chamberlainlaw.com

              - and -

         Keith E. Whitson, Esq.
         SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS
         Fifth Avenue Place
         120 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700,
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3001
         Telephone: (412) 577 5200
         E-mail: kwhitson@schnader.com
                 Beau.Howard@chamberlainlaw.com


HAZE TOBACCO: "Chahini" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Chahini, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, v. Haze Tobacco,
LLC, a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 37-20l5-
00025590-CU-BT-CTL (S.D. Cal., August 1, 2016), was removed from
California Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:16-cv-01922-LAB-RBB to the proceeding. The assigned
Judge is Hon. Larry Alan Burns.

Haze Tobacco manufactures hand crafted premium blends flavored
cigarettes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Esq.
          NICHOLAS AND TOMASEVIC
          225 Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325 0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325 0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org

               - and -

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com


HOME DEPOT: Appeals Ruling in "Bell" Class Suit to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling related to the lawsuit styled Sandy Bell, et al. v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD (E.D.
Cal.) in Sacramento.

The Respondent is stated as the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Sacramento.

The appellate case is captioned as Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.
USDC-SAC, Case No. 16-72656, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 15, 2016,
Plaintiffs Sandy Bell and Martin Gama previously filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit.  That
appellate case is titled Sandy Bell, et al. v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 16-16206.

Petitioner, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., is represented by:

          Liz Bertko, Esq.
          Donna Marie Mezias, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
          E-mail: lbertko@akingump.com
                  dmezias@akingump.com

               - and -

          Joel Mark Cohn, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 887-4000
          Facsimile: (202) 887-4288
          E-mail: jcohn@akingump.com

               - and -

          Rex S. Heinke, Esq.
          Jessica Weisel, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          E-mail: rheinke@akingump.com
                  jweisel@akingump.com

Real Parties in Interest SANDY BELL and MARTIN GAMA, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), are represented by:

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Frank Gatto, Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Raul Perez, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                  glenn.danas@capstonelawyers.com
                  Frank.Gatto@capstonelawyers.com
                  Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com


               - and -

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


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Appeal Pending in MERSCORP Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal
is pending in the MERSCORP Litigation.

Huntington is a defendant in an action filed on January 17, 2012
against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other financial institutions
that participate in the mortgage electronic registration system
(MERS). The putative class action was filed on behalf of all 88
counties in Ohio. The plaintiffs allege that the recording of
mortgages and assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law and
seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants are required to
record every mortgage and assignment on real property located in
Ohio and pay the attendant statutory recording fees. The complaint
also seeks damages, attorney's fees and costs. Huntington along
with the other defendant financial institutions filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which has been fully briefed, but no ruling
has been issued by the Geauga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.
Similar litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and
other financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country, however, Huntington has not been named a defendant in
those other cases.

On May 17, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal, but given the trial
court's decision as well as decisions in similar cases in other
jurisdictions, Huntington no longer believes this matter is
material and therefore will not include it in subsequent filings.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Trial in "Powell" Action Set for Jan. 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that trial is
now set for January 24, 2017, in the case, Powell v. Huntington
National Bank.

Huntington is a defendant in a putative class action filed on
October 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action in West Virginia
state court on behalf of themselves and other West Virginia
mortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged late fees in
violation of West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffs
seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages and
attorney's fees. Huntington removed the case to federal court,
answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia law is
preempted by federal law and therefore does not apply to
Huntington. Following further briefing by the parties, the federal
district court denied Huntington's motion for judgment on the
pleadings on September 26, 2014.

On June 8, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Huntington's motion for an interlocutory appeal of the district
court's decision. The matter was briefed and oral argument held,
but after the oral argument, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the
appeal as improvidently granted and remanded the case back to the
district court for further proceedings. The matter is moving
forward in the trial court and Huntington has filed an early
motion for summary judgment. The discovery stay has been lifted,
and plaintiffs have served requests for documents and to take the
deposition of Huntington personnel. Trial is now set for January
24, 2017.


HYC CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime, "Liang" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YUE YE LIANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. HYC CORP. d/b/a Noodle Chu Dim Sum Seafood House; HARRY CHU,
HENRY CHU, and DANIEL CHU, Case No. 2:16-cv-04798 (D.N.J.,
August 7, 2016), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by
failing to pay employees, including the Plaintiff, the statutory
minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each work week.

HYC CORP., doing business as Noodle Chu Dim Sum Seafood House, is
a New Jersey domestic business corporation with a principal
address in Parsippany, New Jersey.  The Individual Defendants are
owners/operators of the restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Franco, Esq.
          LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C.
          42 Broadway, Suite 12-126
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (800) 933-5620
          E-mail: Lina@LinaFranco.com

               - and -

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


INVENTURE FOODS: Westmoreland County Action Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the District Court has
ordered a stay of case by the Westmoreland County Employee
Retirement Fund until the Court rules on the motion to remand.

On April 4, 2016, a complaint captioned Westmoreland County
Employee Retirement Fund ("Westmoreland") v. Inventure Foods Inc.
("Inventure" or "the Company") et al., Case No. CV2016-002718, was
filed in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Additional defendants are the Company's Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, Capital Foods, LLC, and the
underwriters of  the secondary securities offering that closed
September 14, 2014 (the "September 2014 Offering").  The class
action complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act and
focuses on the Company's frozen food facility in Jefferson,
Georgia.  The plaintiff seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief
deemed appropriate by the court.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

On May 6, 2016,  the Company removed the purported class action
from Superior Court in Maricopa County to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona ("District Court").  On
May 26, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the purported
class action to the Superior Court in Maricopa County.  On July
13, 2016, Inventure, along with our Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, and Capital Foods, LLC, filed a response
in opposition to the motion to remand.  The September 2014
Offering underwriters joined in our opposition brief.  The
plaintiff filed its reply in support of the motion to remand on
June 23, 2016.  The motion to remand remains pending before the
district court. On July 5, 2016, the District Court ordered a stay
of proceedings until the Court rules on the motion to remand.


INVENTURE FOODS: Received Pre-Suit by Nikravesh
-----------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on July 11, 2016, the
Company received a pre-suit notification and demand from Farbod
Nikravesh (represented by Barbara Rohr of Faruqi & Faruqi).  No
lawsuit has been filed.  Mr. Farbod purports to represent a class
of consumers who purchased Boulder Canyon brand products
advertised as "All Natural."  Mr. Farbod alleges the products
contain non-natural ingredients, including but not limited to
maltodextrin, dextrose, and citric acid.  He intends to file a
class action for alleged violations of the California Legal
Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1750, et seq.), the California
Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et
seq.), the California False Advertising Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sec. 17500, et seq.), and other "common law and other
statutory violations."  To avoid suit, Mr. Farbod demands that the
Company refrain from false and misleading marketing, issue an
immediate recall, and make full restitution of all money obtained
from the sale of Boulder Canyon chips.  The Company removed the
challenged language ("All Natural") from its packaging before
receiving the letter, and intends to vigorously defend any class
action filed.


INVENTURE FOODS: Received Pre-Suit by McGuiness
-----------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Maryanne McGuiness
(represented by Tim Howard of Howard & Associates) served the
Company with a pre-lawsuit notification and demand on July 11,
2016.  No lawsuit has been filed.  Ms. McGuiness purports to
represent a class of consumers who purchased Boulder Canyon kettle
chips advertised as "All Natural" and "Non-GMO."  Ms. McGuiness
alleges the products contain non-natural and non-GMO ingredients,
including but not limited to citric acid, disodium phosphate,
corn, corn starch, corn meal, corn flour, corn masa, soluble corn
fiber, corn syrup solids, maltodextrin, dextrose, fructose, and
sucrose.  She intends to file a class action based on alleged
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(Fla. Stat. 501.201, et seq.) and the Florida Misleading
Advertising Statute (Fla. Stat. Sec. 817.41), as well as for
breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and
other contract and tort violations.  To avoid suit, Ms. McGuiness
demands that the Company refrain from false and misleading
advertising, identify consumers who purchased product during the
limitations period, disgorge revenues from sales of products, and
implement a corrective advertising campaign, including a
disclaimer.  The Company removed "All Natural" from all packages
and advertising of kettle cooked chips before receiving the
letter, and intends to vigorously defend any class action filed.


J.B. HUNT: Appeal in Drivers' Class Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in which
the plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who
allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and other items. During the first half of 2014, the court
in the lead class-action granted judgment in our favor with regard
to all claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals where it is currently pending. The
overlapping claims in the remaining action have been stayed
pending a decision in the lead class-action case.

"We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may arise from these lawsuits," the
Company said.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Dismissed as Party to "Wandel" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has been
dismissed as a party to the "Wandel" lawsuit.

On March 1, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Wandel v. Tyco
International plc, et al., Docket No. C-000010-16, was filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey naming Tyco, the individual
members of its board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub as
defendants. The complaint alleges that Tyco's directors breached
their fiduciary duties and exercised their powers as directors in
a manner oppressive to the public shareholders of Tyco in
violation of Irish law by, among other things, failing to take
steps to maximize shareholder value and failing to protect against
purported conflicts of interest. The complaint further alleges
that Tyco, the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted Tyco's
directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaint
seeks, among other things, to enjoin the expected merger between
the Company and Tyco. The Company has been dismissed as a party to
this lawsuit without prejudice for lack of service.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Defending "Laufer" Class Action in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative class action
lawsuit, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No.
2016CV003859, was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit Court of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming the Company, the individual
members of its board of directors, Tyco and Merger Sub as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the expected merger between
the Company and Tyco by, among other things, failing to take steps
to maximize shareholder value, seeking to benefit themselves
improperly and failing to disclose material information in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger. The
complaint further alleges that Tyco aided and abetted the
Company's directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger.

The Company believes that the claims asserted by the complaint are
not valid.


JS & COMPANY: Status Hearing in PIM Class Suit Set for October 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 9, 2016, in the case
captioned Podiatry In Motion, Inc. v. JS & Company Incorporated,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-07943 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue the Plaintiff's
      motion for class certification is granted;

   -- initial status hearing is set for October 6, 2016, at 9:00
      a.m. and parties are to report these:

      (1) Possibility of settlement in the case; and

      (2) If no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and
          length of discovery necessary to get the case ready for
          trial;

   -- Plaintiff is to advise all other parties of the Court's
      action herein;

   -- lead counsel is directed to appear at the status hearing;

   -- the parties are requested to file a joint status report at
      least two days prior to the initial status; and

   -- notice of motion date of August 17, 2016, is stricken and
      no appearances are necessary on that date.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7gbNTTHI


KBR INC: Discovery Continues in Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is expected to continue
through 2016 in the KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System and IBEW Local 58/NECA Funds, seek class action
status on behalf of our shareholders, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our
current and former chief financial officers, and our former chief
accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of our 2013
annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The
case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Master File No. 14-cv-01287."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for
failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong
inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants and
the motion was denied on September 3, 2015. We intend to continue
to vigorously defend against these claims. Discovery in the case
has begun and is expected to continue through 2016.

"At this time, we expect legal fees incurred in defending this
claim to reach or exceed the retention amount of our directors &
officers liability insurance policy beyond which such costs should
be recoverable from insurers and we believe the likelihood that we
would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the amounts
we have accrued is remote. Legal fees to date have been expensed
as incurred."


KEYSTONE CLEARWATER: "Graham" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
James A. Graham, the Plaintiff, v. Keystone Clearwater Solutions,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01180-MPK (W.D. Penn., Aug.
4, 2016), seeks to recover loss of income and other damages as a
direct and proximate result of Keystone's violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Graham routinely worked more than 40 hours per workweek
without receiving overtime compensation from Keystone. He is
allegedly entitled to reimbursement for reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs incurred in connection with his claim.

Keystone provides total water management solutions to oil and gas
operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald T. Elliott, Esq.
          DILLON McCANDLESS KING
          COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP
          128 West Cunningham Street
          Butler, PA 16001
          Telephone: (724) 283 2200
          E-mail: relliott@dmkcg.com


KEYSTONE CLEARWATER: "Wilson" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Corey A. Wilson, the Plaintiff, v. Keystone Clearwater Solutions,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01179-CB (W.D. Penn., Aug. 4,
2016), seeks to recover loss of income and other damages as a
direct and proximate result of Keystone's violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek,
but was not paid an overtime premium for any of his overtime.

Keystone provides total water management solutions to oil and gas
operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald T. Elliott, Esq.
          DILLON McCANDLESS KING
          COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP
          128 West Cunningham Street
          Butler, PA 16001
          Telephone: (724) 283 2200
          E-mail: relliott@dmkcg.com


KINETIC FARM: C&M Suit Seeks Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
C&M Cafe, a California limited liability company, on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kinetic
Farm, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Rosario Garnett, James Butts,
Chris Timm, Jeffrey Byun, Alan Small, and Henry Lee, the
Defendants, Case no. 535271, was removed from the California
Superior Court, County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court
for Northern District of California (Oakland). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-04342-DMR to the proceeding. The
assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Donna M. Ryu.

Kinetic Farm is a company in the prepackaged software companies
industry located in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laurel A Kilgour, Esq.
          Grant P. Fondo, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 733 6000
          E-mail: LKilgour@goodwinlaw.com
                  gfondo@goodwinlaw.com


L.B. ELECTRIC: "Stewart" Suit Seeks $76,502.65 Under Lien Law
-------------------------------------------------------------Karen
Weldin Stewart, CIR-ML, Insurance Commissioner of the State of
Delaware in her capacity as Receiver of ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY,
in Liquidation, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under Section 77 of Article 3-A of the Lien Law, the
Plaintiff, v. L.B. ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC., STEPHEN EINSTEIN &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., and TD BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No.
156452/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 2, 2016), seeks to recover the
sum of at least $76,502.65, plus interest under the Lien Law.

According to the complaint, TD Bank was expressly informed that
the monies ($76,502.65) in the account comprised trust monies
which were immune from attachment or levy for a non-trust purpose.
After the marshal remitted the trust monies he received from TD
Bank to Einstein (net of the marshal's fees), Einstein was
expressly informed that the monies in the aforesaid account
comprised trust monies which were immune from attachment or levy
for a non-trust purpose.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Gamell, Esq.
          TORRE, LENTZ, GAMELL, GARY
          & RITTMASTER, LLP
          100 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 309
          Jericho, NY 11753-2702
          Telephone: (516) 240 8900
          E-mail: mgamell@tlggr.com


LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Settlement
Agreement between the Company and the class of end-payor
purchasers has received the final approval of the District Court.

Beginning on October 5, 2011, several plaintiffs filed putative
class action complaints in several United States federal district
courts against the Company and several other global suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and
indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the
Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period.
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices
at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an
anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United
States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently
concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these
proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified
amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the
proceedings, including attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial
purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court").

In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to
litigate the Consolidated Cases, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Cases on May 5, 2014 (the "Settlement Agreements"), under which
the class plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases will release the
Company from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of
action. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the
Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it
violated no laws in connection with these matters. Because the
conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to
periods prior to the Company's emergence from bankruptcy
proceedings in 2009, the Settlement Agreements provide that the
aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will consist of
$370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder
paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held
in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of
reorganization.

The Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27,
2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by
the District Court on July 1, 2014. The Settlement Agreement
between the Company and the class of direct purchasers received
the final approval of the District Court on December 3, 2014. The
Settlement Agreement between the Company and the class of auto
dealers received the final approval of the District Court on
December 7, 2015. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and
the class of end-payor purchasers received the final approval of
the District Court on June 20, 2016.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal on Dismissal of Data Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
Plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal of the data privacy litigation
remains pending.

The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action,
In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC")
Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia relating to the theft of computer backup
tapes from a vehicle of a company employee.

In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs
from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant,
TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two
plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice.

On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern
District Court of California, related to the same theft of
computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations
of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other
claims.

On August 28, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by the
Plaintiff against the Company.  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of this dismissal on November 17, 2015, to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the appeal remains pending.

Plaintiff filed his appellate brief on May 5, 2016 and Leidos
filed its response on July 6, 2016.  Plaintiff now has the option
to file a reply to the Company's brief by August 19, 2016, after
which, the Court will consider the parties' arguments and render a
decision.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. are an applied technology
company delivering services and solutions to national security,
health and infrastructure markets.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Petition to Rehear Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company's petition to the Second Circuit to rehear the appeal in
the securities litigation remains pending.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint named as
defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two
former chief executive officers, a former group president and the
former program manager on the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce
management system for certain agencies of the City of New York
("CityTime"), and was filed purportedly on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007,
through September 1, 2011.

The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants
made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's
revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection
with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs
sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants
an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred
by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to
vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs'
motions. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 29, 2016, the Second
Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part,
the District Court's ruling. In particular, the Second Circuit
held that the plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue omissions
claims against the Company with respect to the annual report the
Company filed on Form 10-K on March 25, 2011; the Second Circuit
affirmed dismissal of all other claims, including all the claims
against the individual defendants.

The Company has petitioned the Second Circuit to rehear the
appeal, and the petition is pending.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. are an applied technology
company delivering services and solutions to national security,
health and infrastructure markets.


LENDINGTREE INC: Reached Settlement in "Dijkstra" Case
------------------------------------------------------
LendingTree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc.
et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV), have
executed a settlement agreement.

In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry
Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges
that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West
Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the
practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision
of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to
close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory
judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"),
violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act,
civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all
defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc.
have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in
October 2011.

On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class
certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. In
February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment.

With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's
motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment,
unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted
HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt.

In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class.
With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only
(the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were
granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and
outrage. HLC and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual
Claims in June 2014.

In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the
amount of $2.8 million (the "Class Damages Award"). HLC filed a
notice of appeal in August 2014 and in September 2014, plaintiffs
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the
district court's order was not yet final, and, accordingly, HLC's
appeal was dismissed.

In July 2015, the district court ordered that the Class Damages
Award be allocated such that two-thirds of the Class Damages Award
would be paid to the class members and one-third of the Class
Damages would be paid to the plaintiffs' attorneys. In addition,
the court ordered that HLC reimburse the class for attorneys' fees
by making an incremental payment of $389,500 attorneys' fee award
be paid by HLC to the plaintiffs' attorneys. The judge also
awarded prejudgment interest to Plaintiffs.

On July 30, 2015, the district court judge entered a final
judgment order in this matter. On August 27, 2015, HLC filed its
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit with respect to the final judgment, the order granting
attorneys' fees, and the orders on class damages, the pretrial
conference, motions and class certification.

In June 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement with
respect to such matters, subject to a final approval of such
settlement by the district court judge and fulfillment of certain
class notice and administration requirements. An estimated
liability of $3.2 million has been established for this matter in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2016,
of which some or all may be covered by insurance.

LendingTree, Inc., is the parent of LendingTree, LLC and several
companies owned by LendingTree, LLC.  LendingTree operates what it
believes to be the leading online marketplace for consumers
seeking a broad array of loan types and other credit-based
offerings. The Company offers consumers tools and resources,
including free credit scores, that help them to comparison-shop
for mortgage loans, home equity, reverse mortgage, auto loans,
credit cards, personal loans, student loans and small business
loans and other related offerings. The Company primarily seeks to
match in-market consumers with multiple lenders on its marketplace
who can provide them with competing quotes for the loans or
credit-based offerings they are seeking. The Company also serves
as a valued partner to lenders seeking an efficient, scalable and
flexible source of customer acquisition with directly measurable
benefits, by matching the consumer loan inquiries it generates
with these lenders.


LIBERTY POWER: Motion to Certify Class in "Moore" Suit Stricken
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 9, 2016, in the case
entitled George Moore v. Liberty Power Holdings LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-07553 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The minute entry states that a status hearing was held and
continued to September 28, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.  The Court strikes
without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.  The
Court gives the Defendant until September 26, 2016, to answer or
otherwise plead.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2WRNXSo8


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Appeal to 11th Circuit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs' appeal
from the District Court's Order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remains pending.

The Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of
the Company's subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and
certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named
defendants in 26 individual lawsuits filed since December 2014,
and two putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit
Court of Dallas County, Alabama.  These lawsuits allege that
patients at Vaughan Regional Medical Center underwent improper
interventional cardiology procedures.

One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21,
2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama
citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any
Company-owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding
the medical necessity of that procedure.

The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015
also in the Circuit Court for Dallas County, Alabama, seeks
certification of a class of individuals that underwent an
interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically
necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut.  This action asserts, among
other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful, would result in
the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the
RICO violation and attorneys' fees.

In March 2015, the Company removed this action to the U.S.
District Court in Mobile, Alabama and filed a motion to dismiss
and for summary judgment, as well as a stay of discovery pending
resolution of these motions. On April 17, 2015 the court entered
an order granting the requested stay of discovery.

On November 17, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge for the
Southern District of Alabama filed a Report and Recommendation
that the RICO claim be dismissed with prejudice, and that the
court not exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, resulting in those claims being dismissed without
prejudice.

By Order dated March 28, 2016, the United States District Court
Judge adopted in full the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate, dismissing with prejudice the RICO claim and refusing
to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

In a filing made April 7, 2016 the plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Saroza" Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial Services, L.P. The
case is styled AMBER SAROZA, On behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES,
L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04754-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., Aug.
4, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Madeline C. Arleo.

LTD Financial is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 c6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Coburn" Suit in Southern Dist. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. The case
is styled Patricia Coburn, Diana Sirois, and Jim Moylen,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01931-MMA-KSC (S.D.
Cal., Aug. 2, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Michael M. Anello.

Lumber Liquidators is an American retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
          ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES LLP
          32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 851 3850
          E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com


MDL 1952: Court Nixes Amended Deal with Indirect Buyers
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul D. Borman entered an opinion and order in the
multidistrict litigation styled In re Packaged Ice Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2:08-md-01952-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich.):

   (1) denying the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff's motion for
       preliminary approval of amended and restated settlement
       agreement dated December 11, 2015, and for authorization
       to disseminate notice;

   (2) deeming the original March 7, 2012 settlement agreement,
       as modified pursuant to an agreement dated December 20,
       2012, to be in effect and fully enforceable; and

   (3) requiring the submission of a revised motion for
       preliminary approval and revised notices.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., and Reddy Ice Corporation are among the
Defendants in the litigation.

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


MDL 2328: Court Granted Motion for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------
Pool Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a number of purported
anti-trust class action suits were filed against the Company in
various United States District Courts in 2012.  The cases were
transferred and consolidated before the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2328, in the Eastern
District of Louisiana.  The plaintiffs include indirect purchaser
plaintiffs, purporting to represent indirect purchasers of
swimming pool products in Arizona, California, Florida and
Missouri, and direct purchaser plaintiffs, who are current or
former customers.

"On January 27, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment in our
favor on the direct purchasers' horizontal conspiracy claim. On
July 1, 2016, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment on
the remaining claims," the Company said.


MERILU PIZZA: Faces "Navarrete" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Merilu Pizza Al Metro Inc. The
case is captioned Rafael Martinez Navarrete, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Merilu
Pizza Al Metro Inc., doing business as Merilu Pizza Al Metro, and
Marilena Granato, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06164 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 3, 2016).

Merilu serves tiny pizzeria with long-board pies, panini and
salads, all made with homemade mozzarella.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sept. 2017 Trial in British Columbia Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a six-month oral
hearing is scheduled to commence in September 2017 in a class
action lawsuit in British Columbia, Canada.

The Company said, "Antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and
Quebec, Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of
Canadian indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft
operating system software and/or productivity application software
between 1998 and 2010."

"The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
The plaintiffs are expected to file their case in chief in August
2016, setting out claims made, authorities, and evidence in
support. A six-month oral hearing is scheduled to commence in
September 2017, consisting of cross examination on witness
affidavits. The Ontario and Quebec cases are inactive."


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Soffer" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc.
The case is captioned Igal Soffer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., also known as Midland Funding, LLC, The
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04286 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2016).

Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.
It provides flexible payment plans and financial education tools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J Sasson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF
          ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 339 0856
          Facsimile: (347) 244 7178
          E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


MOBILEIRON INC: Paid No Money in Connection with Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company paid no
money to the plaintiffs or their attorneys in connection with the
dismissal of a class action lawsuit.

On May 1, 2015, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers, captioned Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The
action was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 13, 2015 and April 22, 2015. It
asserted claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.The complaint sought, among other
things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on
behalf of the putative class.  An amended complaint was filed on
September 28, 2015.

On February 22, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
MobileIron's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and on March
15, 2016 the Court dismissed the case. MobileIron paid no money to
the plaintiffs or their attorneys in connection with the dismissal
of the action.

MobileIron, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries collectively
provides a purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables
enterprises to manage and secure mobile applications, content and
devices while providing their employees with device choice,
privacy and a native user experience.


MOBILEIRON INC: Shareholder Suit Underway in California
-------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against a shareholder litigation in California.

On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of
its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned
Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc.,
et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were
subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron
Shareholder Litigation.

The actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
of all persons who purchased the Company's securities issued
pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and
the June 12, 2014 initial public offering. The lawsuits assert
claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. The complaint seeks among other things,
compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class.

On April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated
complaint, which no longer names the underwriters or investors as
defendants. The Company intends to defend this litigation
vigorously.

MobileIron, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries collectively
provides a purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables
enterprises to manage and secure mobile applications, content and
devices while providing their employees with device choice,
privacy and a native user experience.


MSC GROUP: Faces "Klein" Suit in District of Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against MSC Group Incorporated. The case
is titled Matthew Klein, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MSC Group Incorporated,
doing business as One Call Care Management, also known as One Call
Care Diagnostics, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02646-DKD (D.
Ariz., Aug. 4, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is David K
Duncan.

MSC Group provides specialized medical services, products, and
cost containment solutions to the workers' compensation industry
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265 3332
          Facsimile: (602) 230 4482
          E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 900 1288
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Appeals From "Johnson" Suit Ruling to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Randy
Johnson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Navient Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00716-LJM-MJD, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case is brought
against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Navient Solutions, Inc. v.
Randy Johnson, Case No. 16-8016, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

Petitioner NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a SALLIE MAE, INC., is
represented by:

          Lisa Marie Simonetti, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE
          1925 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 204-7738
          Facsimile: (424) 204-7702
          E-mail: lsimonetti@vedderprice.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Barrios, Esq.
          Bryan Clark, Esq.
          Jeanah Park, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE
          222 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60601-0000
          Telephone: (312) 609 7789
          E-mail: abarrios@vedderprice.com
                  bclark@vedderprice.com
                  jpark@vedderprice.com

Respondent RANDY JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Aaron David Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 E. Sixth Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


NEW YORK LIFE: Lujan Seeks 9th Cir. Review From N.D. Cal. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nick V. Lujan, James A. Charles and Barbara C. Wright
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Nick
Lujan, et al. v. New York Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
4:16-cv-00913-JSW (N.D. Calif.) in Oakland.

The Case is brought over insurance-related claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Nick Lujan, et al. v. New York
Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 16-16401, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The schedule is
set as follows:

   * Mediation Questionnaire is due on August 16, 2016;

   * The Appellants' opening brief is due on November 17, 2016;

   * The Appellee's answering brief is due on December 19, 2016;
     and

   * The Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
     service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Nick V. Lujan, James A. Charles and Barbara
C. Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Robert M. Bramson, Esq.
          BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com

               - and -

          Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Esq.
          BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          E-mail: jrosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com

Defendants-Appellees NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York
corporation, and NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation, are represented by:


          Andrew S. Azarmi, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          One Market Plaza
          Spear Tower, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 356-4631
          E-mail: Andrew.Azarmi@dentons.com

               - and -

          Laura Leigh Geist, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          525 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2708
          Telephone: (415) 882-5000
          E-mail: laura.geist@dentons.com


NEWARK, NJ: Faces Newark Cab Association Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the City of Newark. The case is
captioned NEWARK CAB ASSOCIATION, NEWARK TAXI OWNER ASSOCIATION,
TETERBORO AIRPORT LIMOUSINE SERVICE, ABBAS ABBAS PETRO
ABDELMESSIEH, SAYEV KHELLAH, MICHAEL W. SAMUEL, and GEORGE TAWFIK,
individually, and by certain plaintiffs on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWARK, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04681-WHW-CLW (D.N.J., Aug. 2, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. William H. Walls.

Newark is the largest city in the U.S. state of New Jersey, and
the county seat of Essex County. One of the nation's major air,
shipping, and rail hubs, the city had a population of 277,140 in
2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          RICHARD W. WEDINGER, Esq.
          Barry, Mctiernan & Wedinger, Esq.
          10 Franklin Avenue
          Edison, NJ 08837
          Telephone: (732) 738 5600
          Facsimile: (732) 738 7518
          E-mail: rwedinger@bmctwlaw.com


NEWSCO INT'L: Parties Seek Class Certification in "Dean" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned DAVID DEAN, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. NEWSCO
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY SERVICES, USA, INC., Case No. 4:15-cv-03406
(S.D. Tex.), filed with the Court their joint motion and
stipulation for conditional certification and Court-authorized
notice to allegedly similarly situated class members.

The Fair Labor Standards Act collective is defined as: "All
persons who worked in the position of directional driller (or
similar job position performing similar duties) for Newsco
International Energy Services, USA, Inc. at any time in the three
years prior to the filing of this Complaint."

The Defendant agrees to the defined class as being similarly
situated solely for the purposes of conditional certification and
judicial notice in the Case and not for any other purpose and
reserves the right to assert all defenses it may have in the Case
and to move to decertify the conditionally certified class.

The parties also ask the Court to authorize and approve the
attached Notice and Consent form to be sent to potential opt-ins.
Within seven days of the Court's entry of conditional
certification, the Defendant's counsel will provide the
Plaintiff's counsel with a list of every person, who worked for
the Defendant as a directional driller (or similar job position
performing similar duties) within three years prior to the date of
the filing of the Complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Oe5aapT8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Hungerford, Esq.
          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: jhungerford@nka.com
                  morgan@nka.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Harvey, Esq.
          MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C
          700 Milam Street, Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-4015
          Facsimile: (713) 222-5835
          E-mail: mharvey@munsch.com


NOBLE CASING: Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought in "Noskoviak" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM NOSKOVIAK, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC
Section 216(b) v. NOBLE CASING, INC., Case No. 1:16-ov-00283-DLH-
CSM (D.N.D., August 5, 2016), is brought as a collective and class
action to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Noble Casing, Inc. is a North Dakota corporation that operates in
North Dakota out of its office located in Williston, North Dakota.
Noble Casing has been involved in oilfield casing services in
oilfields throughout the United States over the last three years.
Noble Casing employs non-exempt casing operators and other non-
exempt employees to help perform casing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 706-0834
          Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

               - and -

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Jay Forester, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  forester@l-b-law.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Defending Shareholder Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Ocwen is defending
a securities action brought on behalf of certain putative
shareholders of Ocwen.

The Company said, "Following our announcement in August 2014 that
we intended to restate our financial statements for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013 and the quarter ended March 31, 2014,
and amend our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014, putative securities fraud class
action lawsuits were filed against Ocwen and certain of its
officers and directors regarding such restatements and amendments.
Those lawsuits have been consolidated and are pending in federal
court in Florida. After Ocwen signed a Consent Order with the
NYDFS in December 2014, the consolidated securities fraud class
action complaint was amended to include allegations relating to
that Consent Order and other matters.

"In January 2015, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate
consolidated securities fraud class action that has been brought
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of Altisource
Portfolio Solutions, S.A. (Altisource). In September 2015, the
presiding federal court dismissed both of the above-referenced
consolidated securities fraud class actions. Both of those actions
have since been re-filed in federal court.

"On December 22, 2015, the presiding federal court dismissed the
claims against Ocwen with prejudice in the above-referenced matter
brought by the putative class of Altisource shareholders. On that
same day, the presiding federal court dismissed in part the above-
referenced matter brought by the putative class of Ocwen
shareholders.

"In January 2016, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate
securities action brought on behalf of certain putative
shareholders of Ocwen.

"Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time, Ocwen is
unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these
lawsuits or any potential impact they may have on us or our
operations. Ocwen and the other defendants intend to vigorously
defend against these lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these
lawsuits are not successful, our business, financial condition,
liquidity and results of operations could be materially and
adversely affected."


OUTERWALL INC: Illinois Supreme Court Denied Plaintiffs' Petition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Illinois Supreme
Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for review of the order
dismissing their claims in the class action lawsuit against
Redbox.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in
the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things,
Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois
Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract
Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and
other relief.

In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the
District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May
2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class
certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court
denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an
amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the
hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the
plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her
claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the
Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act.

On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action
motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied
plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial
of class certification. Redbox moved to dismiss all remaining
claims on mootness grounds, and the Court granted Redbox's motion
on December 11, 2014.

The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015. Oral argument was held
November 10, 2015. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's
rulings on January 11, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme
Court on February 16, 2016, and Redbox filed an answer on March 8,
2016. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs petition on May
25, 2016.

"We continue to believe that the claims against us are without
merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter
should plaintiff seek further appellate review. Currently, no
accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate," the
Company said.


PETRO RIVER: Motions Pending in Donelson-Friend Case
----------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that three motions filed by
plaintiffs in the case, Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v.
United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., remain
pending.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action
complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v.
United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No.
14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding").  The plaintiffs added as
defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators,
including the Spyglass Energy, LLC ("Spyglass"), a wholly owned
Subsidiary of Bandolier Energy, LLC, as well as all Osage County
lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement,
lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in violation of National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases,
concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12,
2014, without satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal
regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and
gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab
initio.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for
alleged nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment.  The
potential consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the
corresponding leases.

On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various
procedural and legal grounds. Following the significant briefing,
the Court, on March 31, 2016, granted the Motion to Dismiss as to
all defendants and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants
against the plaintiffs. On April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other
defendants, filed a Motion seeking its attorneys' fees and costs.
Said motion remains pending.

On April 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to
Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and
a Motion to Vacate Order. All three Motions are pending as of the
effective date of this response. There is no specific timeline by
which the Court must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to continue
to vigorously defend its interest in this matter.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Goldberg" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen Associates, LTD.
The case is captioned Meir Goldberg, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen
Associates, LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04303 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 2, 2016).

Phillips & Cohen offers collection services across a host of
industries and service sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J Sasson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 339 0856
          Facsimile: (347) 244 7178
          E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


PIER 1 IMPORTS: "Pedraza" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Pedraza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S) Inc.
and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 30-02016-
00851091-CU, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:16-cv-01447 to the proceeding.

Pier 1 Imports is a Fort Worth, Texas-based retailer specializing
in imported home furnishings and decor, particularly furniture,
table-top items, decorative accessories, and seasonal decor.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily E Schroeder, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1408
          Telephone: (213) 270 9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270 9601
          E-mail: eschroeder@seyfarth.com


PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTS: Faces "Lester" Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Professional Accounts Service,
Inc. The case is captioned CARRIE LESTER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTS SERVICE, INC., an Indiana corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02099-WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind., Aug. 4,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. William T. Lawrence.

Professional Accounts is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq.
          JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D-1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780 8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217 1320
          E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


RECOLOGY LOS ANGELES: "Alvarez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Alvarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Movants,
and Recology Los Angeles and Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. BC619897, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-05816 to the
proceeding.

Recology provides landfill diversion and resource recovery
services to homes and businesses through collection, recycling,
and composting in California.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ROBERT CRANE: Faces "Dunham" Suit in Southern District Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Robert Crane & Associates, LLC.
The case is captioned DAVID DUNHAM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROBERT CRANE &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02100-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 4,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Sarah Evans Barker.

Robert Crane is engaged in crane hoisting and rigging services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Steven James Halbert, Esq.
          11805 N. Pennsylvania Street
          Americenters Building
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 706 6762
          Facsimile: (317) 706 6763
          E-mail: shalbertlaw@aol.com
                  davephilipps@aol.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


ROYAL TEN: Faces Wendell H Suit in Northern District of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Royal Ten Cate (USA), Inc. The
case is captioned Wendell H. Stone Company, Inc., doing business
as Stone & Company, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Royal Ten Cate (USA), Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00189-WCO
(N.D. Ga., Aug. 4, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. William C.
O'Kelley.

Royal Ten develops, manufactures, and markets textiles and
functional materials that are used for safety and protection,
aerospace, sports and recreation, and infrastructure and
environment applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
          SHAMP SPEED JORDAN
          WOODWARD, LLC
          1718 Peachtree Street, Suite 660
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 893 9400
          Facsimile: (404) 872 3745
          E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com


SAFE AUTO: Accused by "Strong" Suit of Not Paying Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA STRONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SAFE AUTO INSURANCE GROUP, INC., SAFE AUTO INSURANCE
COMPANY, DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-00765-EAS-TPK (S.D.
Ohio, August 5, 2016), is brought as a result of Safe Auto's
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kentucky
Wage and Hour Law, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, by virtue of the Defendants' practices of
not paying the Plaintiff, and other similarly-situated Safe Auto
Sales Agents, appropriate overtime compensation.

Safe Auto Insurance Group, Inc. is an Ohio corporation, founded in
1993, with its principal place of business located in Columbus,
Ohio.  Safe Auto Insurance Group, Inc. provides financial services
and offers underwriting of fire, marine and casualty insurance.
Safe Auto Insurance Company is an Ohio corporation and a
subsidiary of Safe Auto Insurance Group, Inc., and is also
headquartered in Columbus.  Safe Auto Insurance Company operates
as a property and casualty auto insurance carrier.  The Plaintiff
is unaware of the names and identifies of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, PC
          1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 570-0097
          Facsimile: (888) 411-0038
          E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com

               - and -

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com
                  imelamed@faruqilaw.com


SERVICE CORPORATION: Samborsky Claims Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
claims in the case, Charles Samborsky, et al, individually and on
behalf of those persons similarly situated, v. SCI California
Funeral Services, Inc., et al ; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
Central District-Central Civil West Courthouse, have been sent to
arbitration.

The Company said, "This lawsuit was filed in April 2014 against an
SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of
employees who worked as family service counselors in California
since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for
various violations of state laws regulating wage and hour pay. The
plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. The
claims have been sent to arbitration. We cannot quantify our
ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit."


SERVICE CORPORATION: Still Defends "Moulton" Case in New Orleans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Stewart
Enterprises, Inc., continues to defend the case, Karen Moulton,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and
others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of
New Orleans.

The Company said, "This case was filed as a class action in June
2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in connection with SCI's
proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs
allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by
Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the
combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The
plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. We filed
exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were granted in June
2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the
suit. The case will continue against our subsidiary Stewart
Enterprises and its former individual directors. We cannot
quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of
damages."


SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss "Huang" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit by Ming Huang remains pending.

On April 6, 2015, Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 3:15-
02407), alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (the "District of New Jersey"), against the Company
and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan, the Company's President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark T. Greenquist, the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants").
On September 21, 2015, in response to motions subsequently filed
with the District of New Jersey by four other purported
shareholders of the Company seeking status as lead plaintiff, the
District of New Jersey appointed Richard Sousa as lead plaintiff
(the "Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from October 23, 2014
to March 24, 2015, and seeks unspecified damages. The principal
allegation contained in the Complaint is that the Defendants made
misleading forward-looking statements concerning the Company's
fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance.

On September 22, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer (the
"Motion to Transfer") this case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff filed his
opposition to the Motion to Transfer on October 5, 2015, and the
Company filed a reply to the Motion to Transfer on October 13,
2015.

On March 21, 2016, the District of New Jersey granted the
Company's Motion to Transfer. Thus, this case will now be
litigated in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10657-GAO). On May 4,
2016, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"), which is now the operative complaint in this
litigation.

On June 20, 2016, the Company and the other Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss")
and on July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss. The Company has until August 15, 2016 to file a
reply to the Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

The Company believes that the Defendants have meritorious defenses
to the allegations made in the Amended Complaint and does not
expect the results of this suit to have a material effect on its
business or consolidated financial statements.

Sonus Networks provides networked solutions for communications
service providers (e.g., telecommunications, wireless and cable
service providers) and enterprises to help them advance, protect
and unify their communications and improve collaboration.


SOUTHAMPTON PARK: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Southampton Park, LLC. The case
is captioned JESSICA SLIVAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHAMPTON PARK,
LLC, ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04181-MMB (E.D.
Penn., Aug. 2, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Michael M.
Baylson.

Southampton Park offers activity and recreation venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Certification Decision Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Defendants have
submitted a petition to appeal a class certification decision.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States
who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic
flights beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were
consolidated before a single federal district court judge in
Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the
consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The
parties engaged in extensive discovery, and discovery has now
closed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims. The parties filed motions to exclude the opinions of the
other parties' experts on class certification and on the merits.

On January 8, 2016, the parties completed briefing on defendants'
motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and the motions to exclude the opinions of experts.

On July 12, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class of all persons who paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta
from December 8, 2008 to November 1, 2014 (the date on which
AirTran stopped charging first bag fees). Defendants have
submitted a petition to appeal the class certification decision.
Defendants' motions for summary judgment are still pending.

AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss Consumers Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties are
briefing the Defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
by consumers.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of
Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District
of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern
District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of
New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern
District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the
District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
Northern District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to
bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines
from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and the parties are briefing that motion. The
Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend these civil cases.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: British Columbia Case Discontinued
------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Federal Court in
British Columbia granted plaintiffs' motion to discontinue a class
action against the Company without prejudice.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in British Columbia, Canada alleging
that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines,
and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain
higher fares for Canadian citizens traveling in the United States
and for travel between the United States and Canada. Similar
lawsuits were filed in Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan.

On June 9, 2016, the Federal Court in British Columbia granted
plaintiffs' motion to discontinue that action against the Company
without prejudice and stayed the action against the other
defendants.

The time for the Company to respond to the remaining complaints
has not yet expired. The Company denies all allegations of
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend these civil cases in
Canada.


STERICYCLE INC: To Restate Financials Over Class Suit Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, that the
Audit Committee (the "Audit Committee") of the Board of Directors
of Stericycle, Inc. (the "Company") on July 26, 2016, determined
that the consolidated financial statements for the quarters ended
March 31, 2015, June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015
(collectively, the "Affected Periods"), originally included in the
Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for each of the Affected
Periods, should no longer be relied upon due to errors in the
timing of recognition of certain loss reserves.

The errors in timing of recognition of certain loss reserves
relate to the Company's settlement of two previously disclosed
litigation matters: first, a class action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois captioned Sawyer v.
Stericycle Inc., et al., Case No. 2015 CH 07190 (the "TCPA
Action"), alleging that from 2010 to 2014, the Company violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005; and second, a qui tam action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D.
Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390 (the "Qui Tam
Action"), alleging that from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2014, the
Company improperly increased its service price to certain
government customers without their consent or contractual
authorization, in violation of the False Claims Act and similar
state statutes.

The identified accounting errors related to the timing of
recognition of loss reserves between quarterly periods and had no
effect on the Company's audited annual results for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

The Company originally recorded $45.0 million in accrued
liabilities related to the TCPA Action in the second quarter of
2015; the Company is now of the view that this amount should have
been recorded in the first quarter of 2015. In addition, the
Company originally recorded $28.5 million in accrued liabilities
related to the Qui Tam Action in the third quarter of 2015; the
Company is now of the view that this amount also should have been
recorded in the first quarter of 2015.

The Company will restate portions of its interim condensed
consolidated financial statements for the Affected Periods to
reflect the modified timing of the recognition of these losses.
The impact of the restatement is as follows:

   * the estimated loss contingency for the first quarter of
fiscal 2015 was understated by $73.5 million, resulting in an
overstatement of net income of $46.5 million for the three month
period ended March 31, 2015;

   * the estimated loss contingency for the second quarter of
fiscal 2015 was overstated by $45.0 million, resulting in an
understatement of net income of $27.4 million for the three month
period ended June 30, 2015. For the six month period ended June
30, 2015, the estimated loss contingency was understated by $28.5
million, resulting in an overstatement of net income of $19.1
million for the six month period ended June 30, 2015; and

   * the estimated loss contingency for the third quarter of
fiscal 2015 was overstated by $28.5 million, resulting in an
understatement of net income of $17.2 million for the three month
period ended September 30, 2015.

The restatement had no effect on net income for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

The Company intends to present the restated financial information
for the Affected Periods in the Company's Amendments on Form 10-
K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and on Form 10-Q/A
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016 (the "Amended
Forms"). The Company does not anticipate filing amended periodic
reports for any filing prior to the Annual Report on 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, including Forms 10-Q for any
of the Affected Periods. The Company intends to file the Amended
Forms as soon as possible.

The Company's controls related to the accounting for loss
contingencies were inadequate to ensure that loss reserves were
recorded timely in the appropriate period. The Company intends to
revise the COSO Component - Risk Assessment material weakness
described in Management's Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting in its Form 10-K/A filing to also encompass
the accounting for loss contingencies.

The Audit Committee has discussed the matters disclosed on this
Current Report on Form 8-K with the Company's independent
registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP.


SYSCO CORPORATION: "Stone" Suit Moved to E.D. California
-------------------------------------- -----------------
Toiyagaduh Stone, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
Sysco Corporation, Sysco Ventura, Inc., and Does 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. ICSI-CVCV-16-59516, was removed from the Inyo
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California - (Fresno). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-at-00624 to the proceeding.

Sysco is an American multinational corporation involved in
marketing and distributing food products to restaurants,
healthcare and educational facilities, hotels and inns, and other
foodservice and hospitality businesses.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Julie Kwun, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820 8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820 8859
          E-mail: jkwun@bakerlaw.com


TA OPERATING: Owes Wages and Unpaid Overtime, "Padilla" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PADILLA, JEROME CLARK, II, AND WILLIE R. REDEN, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TA
OPERATING LLC, a foreign limited liability company, d/b/a
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:16-cv-14340-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
August 5, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of wages
owed and for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

TA Operating, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company doing
business as TravelCenters of America, and has a principal place of
business located in Westlake, Ohio.  The Company has locations
throughout the United States, including in Vero Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cathleen Scott, Esq.
          Chelsea Bellew, Esq.
          SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          Jupiter Gardens
          250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653-0008
          Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
          E-mail: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com
                  CBellew@scottwagnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Meredith Biggs, Esq.
          GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A.
          777 S Flagler Dr., Suite 500
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 650-0761
          E-mail: mbiggs@gunster.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern Dist. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Tenet Healthcare Corporation. The
case is captioned Andres Gomez, Jill Gross, and Luke Davis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, doing business as
Hialeah Hospital, doing business as, Coral Gables Hospital, doing
business as: Hahnemann University Hospital, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-23321-JAL (S.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Joan A. Lenard.

Tenet Healthcare is a multinational investor-owned healthcare
services company based in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos R. Diaz, Esq.
          STEWART, MURRAY & ASSOC.
          LAW GROUP, LLC
          437 Grant Street, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 765 3345
          Facsimile: (412) 765-3346
          E-mail: cdiaz@smalawgroup.com


THERANOS INC: Faces "LT" Suit Over Edison Blood Testing Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
L.T., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
THERANOS, INC. and WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. 2:16-
cv-02660-BSB (D. Ariz., August 5, 2016), is brought for damages
and injunctive relief arising from injuries suffered by the
Plaintiff and each class member due to the Defendants'
misrepresentation of the nature of the service offered by their
Edison machines.

L.T. alleges that she received flawed tests from Theranos.  She
asserts that she bought her test at a Phoenix-area Walgreens,
relying on Walgreens' reputation as a longstanding provider of
safe and reliable pharmacy care.

Theranos, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.  Theranos is a Silicon Valley startup that set
out to "disrupt" that industry by introducing what it said was a
revolutionary new way of drawing and testing blood.  Instead of
the large needles, tubes, and vials that phlebotomists
conventionally use, Theranos claimed to have invented a system
that drew blood with a mere pinprick to the fingertip, captured
only a few drops in a tiny, proprietary vial, and analyzed the
sample on a secret device it code-named "Edison."

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, and the product of a 2014
merger between U.S.-based Walgreen Co. and Swiss-based Alliance
Boots GmbH.  Post-merger, Walgreens operates over 8,100 drugstores
in the United States, offering pharmacy services alongside
groceries and dry goods.

In the fall of 2013, Theranos announced a long-term partnership
with Walgreens.  The Plaintiff asserts that the partnership had a
problem, however, because Theranos' revolutionary system did not
work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Grant Woods, Esq.
          GRANT WOODS LAW
          The Atticus Building
          650 North 3rd Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 258-2599
          Facsimile: (602) 258-5070
          E-mail: gw@grantwoodspc.net

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq.
          Steven A. Lopez, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  gam@classlawgroup.com
                  sal@classlawgroup.com


TMG CONSTRUCTION: "Siguencia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
GUIDO MARCELO SIGUENCIA and DAMIAN JAVIER MARTINEZ, on behalf of
themselves, and others similarly situated v. TMG CONSTRUCTION
CORP., MASS CONSTRUCTION NY CORP., LPL CONTRACTING CORP., MARK
CONSTRUCTION GROUP CORPORATION, and MARTIN LAZOR, individually,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06230 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2016), alleges that,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interests and attorneys' fees and costs.

TMG Construction Corp., is a New York domestic business
corporation with a principal place of business in New York City.
Mass Construction NY Corp., is a New York domestic business
corporation with a principal place of business in Carmel, New
York.  LPL Contracting Corp., is a New York domestic business
corporation with a principal place of business in Brewster, New
York.  Mark Construction Group Corp., is a New York domestic
business corporation with a principal place of business in Carmel,
New York.

Martin Lazor, is an owner, officer, director or managing agent of
the Corporate Defendants.  The Corporate Defendants each engage in
related activities, namely, general contracting and construction
of commercial and residential properties in New York City.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


TOP OF THE LINE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Southern Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Top of the Line Brooklyn, Inc.
The case is captioned Darryl Robinson, Derrick Penn, Patrick
Laurent, and Terrance Allen, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Top of the Line Brooklyn,
Inc., doing business as Tip Top Car Wash, jointly and severally;
and Top of the Line One, Inc., doing business as Tip Top Car Wash,
jointly and severally; Top of the Line Car Wash, Inc., doing
business as Tip Top Car Wash, jointly and severally; Signature
Investment Group doing business as SIG, jointly and severally;
Manny Shurka, jointly and severally; and Michael Ayngorn, also
known as Michael Aiingorn, jointly and severally, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06152 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2016).

Top of the Line offers professional car cleaning services.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


TUMI HOLDINGS: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed
---------------------------------------------
Tumi Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, that the plaintiff, Tumi,
and the other defendants in the Sun Federal Court Action filed
with the court a Stipulation of Dismissal and Proposed Order.

On March 3, 2016, Tumi entered into a merger agreement with
Samsonite International S.A. ("Samsonite") and PTL Acquisition
Inc., pursuant to which Samsonite will acquire Tumi.  Thereafter,
on March 15, 2016, a putative stockholder class action challenging
the merger was filed in New Jersey Superior Court and was
captioned Sun v. Tumi Holdings, Inc., et al., No. C-32-16 (N.J.
Super.) (the "Sun State Court Action").  The Sun State Court
Action alleged that the members of Tumi's board breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, entering into the merger
agreement with Samsonite at an inadequate price, failing to engage
in an auction process, and failing to disclose all material
information to Tumi's stockholders.  The Sun State Court Action
also alleged that Tumi and Samsonite aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On April 14, 2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Sun State
Court Action.

On April 19, 2016, the same plaintiff who filed the Sun State
Court Action, filed an action in the District of New Jersey,
captioned Sun v. Tumi Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-02184-
JMV-JBC (D. NJ.) (the "Sun Federal Court Action").  The Sun
Federal Court Action makes only disclosure claims, alleging an
individual claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended to date ("1934 Act") against Tumi
and the members of its board, as well as an individual claim for
violation of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against Samsonite and
the members of Tumi's board.  Tumi and the board believes these
claims are wholly without merit. Regardless, on May 13, 2016, Tumi
filed a revised Preliminary Proxy Statement that mooted all of the
claims in the Sun Federal Court Action.

Accordingly, on July 19, 2016, plaintiff, Tumi, and the other
defendants in the Sun Federal Court Action filed with the court a
Stipulation of Dismissal and Proposed Order (the "Stipulation")
informing the court that plaintiff believes his claims have been
mooted and requesting that the court dismiss the action with
prejudice.  The Stipulation also states that plaintiff intends to
submit an application to the court for an award of attorneys' fees
in connection with the mooted claims.

Tumi offers a comprehensive line of travel and business products
and accessories in multiple categories.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Lamour" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JEAN EDNER LAMOUR, AN
INDIVIDUAL v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
Case No. 1:16-cv-21449-JEM (S.D. Fla.), moves the Court to
conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of
this collective class:

     All persons who drove for Uber as UberX, Uber Black or Uber
     SUV drivers in the United States within the applicable
     statute(s) of limitations and through the entry of judgment
     in this case.

The Motion also seeks authority for the dissemination of the
notice to the collective action members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PjQPkKh1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald F. Richman, Esq.
          Adam M. Myron, Esq.
          Joshua L. Spoont, Esq.
          RICHMAN GREER, P.A.
          One Clearlake Center, Suite 1504
          250 Australian Avenue South
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 803-3500
          Facsimile: (561) 820-1608
          E-mail: grichman@richmangreer.com
                  amyron@richmangreer.com
                  jspoont@richmangreer.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Schultz, Esq.
          MERRILL, SCHULTZ AND BENNETT, LIMITED
          2240 Fifth Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 501-4540
          E-mail: schultz@sbemp.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Schultz, Esq.
          LSRCF LAW, PLLC
          1111 Brickell Ave., #2200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 760-8544
          E-mail: TSchultz@LSRCF.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Courtney B. Wilson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: cwilson@littler.com


UNION PACIFIC: Appeals Ruling in "Serrano" Suit to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company, successor to Southern
Pacific Transportation Company, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Charles Serrano, et al. v. UPRR, et
al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00718-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.) in Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Serrano, et al. v.
UPRR, et al., Case No. 16-80101, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Respondents CHARLES SERRANO, as trustees of the CHARLES
SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; BARBARA SLOAN, as
trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE
TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
COACHELLA SELF STORAGE, LLC; JAMES PILCHER; SUSAN PILCHER; MARTIN
WELLS, as trustees of the MARTIN & SUSAN WELLS REVOCABLE TRUST;
and SUSAN WELLS, as trustees of the MARTIN & SUSAN WELLS REVOCABLE
TRUST, are represented by:

          Jason Scott Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth McCulley, Esq.
          Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, L.L.C.
          2100 Central, Suite 22
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
          E-mail: mcculley@swm.legal
                  stewart@swm.legal

Plaintiff-Respondent RICHARD BAGDASARIAN, INC., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Rafael Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley Keith King, Esq.
          Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents LIDIA RIVERA, EVERARDO RIVERA, ENRIQUE
MOLINA, ALAN WILLSMORE, as Trustee for the Wilmore Trust, SHELLEY
WILLSMORE, as Trustee for the Wilmore Trust, KENNETH R. HANSEN, as
Trustee for the Hansen Family Trust, CONNIE SANCHEZ, as Trustee
for the Sanchez Family Trust 11-11-11, DAVID SANCHEZ, as Trustee
for the Sanchez Family Trust 11-11-11, RAVINDER S. THIARA, SUREENA
THIARA and MARY CRUZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Andrew G. Giacomini, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
          E-mail: agiacomini@hansonbridgett.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents MONICA RODRIGUEZ ELPIDIO and MARIA J.
BARAHONA are represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com

Plaintiff-Respondent SANDRA L. HINSHAW is represented by:

          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: lange@stuevesiegel.com

Defendant-Petitioner UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, is represented by:

          J. Scott Ballenger, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: Escott.ballenger@lw.com

               - and -

          Joe Rebein, Esq.
          John K. Sherk, III, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: jrebein@shb.com
                  jsherk@shb.com

               - and -

          Tammy Beth Webb, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          E-mail: tbwebb@shb.com

Defendants SFPP, L.P., other Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines Inc other
Southern Pacific Pipelines Inc., KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D"
and KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC., are represented by:

          M. Ray Hartman, III, Esq.
          Catherine O'Connor, Esq.
          Steven Marc Strauss, Esq.
          Summer Jerre Wynn, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550-6453
          Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
          E-mail: rhartman@cooley.com
                  coconnor@cooley.com
                  sms@cooley.com
                  swynn@cooley.com


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Faces "Cohen" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Universal Fidelity, LP. The case
is captioned Nissim Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Universal Fidelity, LP, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04301 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2016).

Universal Fidelity, also known as UFLP, provides billing,
collection, and call center services for companies; and federal,
state, and local governments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J Sasson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 339 0856
          Facsimile: (347) 244 7178
          E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


UNUM GROUP: Court Issued Final Settlement Approval Order
--------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that a California court has issued a final
order approving the settlement in a class action complaint.

In May 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of California insureds who
were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature.  The plaintiff alleged we incorrectly
administered the inflation protection feature, resulting in an
underpayment of benefits.  The complaint made allegations against
us for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business
and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief.

The Company said, "We removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, and
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of a nationwide
class of insureds who were issued long-term care policies
containing an inflation protection feature. After we answered the
complaint, the court permitted the plaintiff to file another
amended complaint entitled Michael Don, Executor of The Estate of
Ruben Don, Leroy Little, by and through his Guardian ad Litem
Tamara Pelham, and Carolyn Little v. Unum Group, and Unum Life
Insurance Company of America containing similar allegations."

"In April 2015, we again answered the complaint. The plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking certification of five subclasses, and we
filed our opposition. In February 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary approval of settlement for a class of
certain insureds issued long-term care policies containing an
inflation protection feature as well as certain insureds who
requested copies of their long-term care policies. In July 2016,
the court issued a final order approving the settlement. We
adjusted our previously accrued estimated loss contingency as a
result of the final settlement, the amount of which was immaterial
to our consolidated financial position and results of operations."


USA GENERAL: Faces "Berrios" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against U.S.A. GENERAL CONTRACTORS CORP.
The case is captioned BENITO BERRIOS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. U.S.A. GENERAL
CONTRACTORS CORP., KATHLEEN SEREVETAS, and GREGORY SEREVETAS, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04726 (D.N.J., Aug. 4, 2016).

U.S.A. General Contractors was founded in 1993. The company's line
of business includes the construction of nonresidential buildings.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


VALIDITY RESEARCH: Faces "Alan" Suit in Southern Dist. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Validity Research, Inc. The case
is captioned Jason Alan, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Validity Research, Inc.,
Does 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-05758-AB-AJW (S.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2016). The assigned Judge
is Hon. Andre Birotte Jr.

Validity Research is a research firm in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
                  tfriedman@toddflaw.com


VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Falk" Suit in Eastern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Van Ru Credit Corporation. The
case is captioned Jonathan Falk, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Van Ru
Credit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04319
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2016).

Van Ru has been doing business in the accounts receivable industry
for more than 60 years.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791 4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791 4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


VANGUARD NATURAL: Response to Merger Suit Due Aug. 22
-----------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the LRE Lawsuit
Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the LRE Lawsuit is currently set for August 22, 2016.

In June and July 2015, purported LRE unitholders filed four
lawsuits challenging the LRE Merger. These lawsuits were styled
(a) Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087-VCG,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; (b) Christopher
Tiberio v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-39864, in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, 334th Judicial District;
(c) Eddie Hammond v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-40154, in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial
District; and (d) Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil
Action No. 4:15-cv-2017, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. These lawsuits
have been voluntarily dismissed or nonsuited.

On August 18, 2015, another purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit in connection
with the LRE Merger. This lawsuit is styled Robert Hurwitz v. Eric
Mullens et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00711-UNA, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "LRE
Lawsuit"). On June 22, 2016, the LRE Plaintiff filed his Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended LRE Complaint") against LRE,
the members of the LRE GP board of directors, Vanguard, LRE Merger
Sub, and the members of Vanguard's board of directors (the "LRE
Lawsuit Defendants").

In the Amended LRE Complaint, the LRE Plaintiff alleges multiple
causes of action related to the registration statement and proxy
statement filed with the SEC in connection with the LRE Merger
(the "LRE Proxy"), including that (i) Vanguard and its directors
have allegedly violated Section 11 of the Securities Act because
the LRE Proxy allegedly contained misleading statements and
omitted allegedly material information, (ii) the members of
Vanguard's board of directors have allegedly violated Section 15
of the Exchange Act by signing the LRE Proxy and participating in
the issuance of common units in connection with the LRE Merger,
(iii) the LRE Lawsuit Defendants have allegedly violated Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder
because the LRE Proxy allegedly contained misleading statements
and omitted allegedly material information, and (iv) LRE's and
Vanguard's directors have allegedly violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by allegedly controlling LRE and Vanguard in
disseminating the LRE Proxy. In general, the LRE Plaintiff alleges
that the LRE Proxy failed, among other things, to disclose
allegedly material details concerning Vanguard's (x) debt
obligations and (y) ability to maintain distributions to
unitholders.

Based on these allegations, the LRE Plaintiff seeks, among other
relief, to rescind the LRE Merger, and an award of damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

The LRE Lawsuit Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or
otherwise respond to the LRE Lawsuit is currently set for August
22, 2016. Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the LRE Lawsuit
or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the
filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time
and expense that will be required to resolve the LRE Lawsuit. The
LRE Lawsuit Defendants believe the LRE Lawsuit is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Debt Exchange Case Due Aug. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Debt Exchange
Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation relating to the debt
exchange on August 19, 2016.

On March 1, 2016, a purported holder of the Senior Notes due 2020,
Gregory Maniatis, individually and purportedly on behalf of other
non-qualified institutional buyers ("non-QIBs") who beneficially
held the Senior Notes due 2020, filed a class action lawsuit,
against Vanguard and VNRF. The lawsuit is styled Gregory Maniatis
v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC and VNR Finance Corp., Case No.
1:16-cv-1578, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On March 18, 2016, a purported holder of the Senior Notes due
2020, William Rowland, individually and purportedly on behalf of
others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit, against
Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC,
Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC, and
Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC. The lawsuit is styled, Rowland v.
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-2021 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On March 29, 2016, a purported holder of the Senior Notes due
2020, Lawrence Culp, individually and purportedly on behalf of
others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit, against
Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC,
Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC, and
Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC. The lawsuit is styled, Culp v.
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-2303 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On April 14, 2016, the court in the Maniatis case ordered all
related cases consolidated into Case No. 1:16-cv-1578, with the
styling In re Vanguard Natural resources Bondholder Litigation
(the "Debt Exchange Lawsuit"). Manitatis, Rowland and Culp (the
"Debt Exchange Plaintiffs") filed an Amended Complaint in the Debt
Exchange Lawsuit against Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas,
LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC, Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy
Partners Operating LLC, and Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC (the
"Debt Exchange Defendants") on April 20, 2016.

The Debt Exchange Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action
challenging the Company's debt exchange, whereby the Debt Exchange
Defendants issued new Senior Secured Second Lien Notes in exchange
for certain Senior Notes due 2020, including that the Debt
Exchange Defendants have allegedly (a) violated Section 316(b) of
the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the "TIA") by benefiting
themselves and a minority of the holders of Senior Notes due 2020
at the expense of the non-QIB holders of Senior Notes due 2020,
(b) breached the terms of the indenture governing the Senior Notes
due 2020 (the "Senior Notes Indenture") and the Debt Exchange
Plaintiffs' and class members' contractual rights under the Senior
Notes Indenture, (c) breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing in connection with the debt exchange, and (d)
unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of the Debt Exchange
Plaintiffs and class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing
the value of the Senior Notes due 2020.

Based on these allegations, the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs seek to
be declared a proper class action, declaratory relief that the
debt exchange and the liens created for the benefit of the Senior
Secured Second Lien Notes are null and void and that the debt
exchange effectively resulted in a default under the Senior Notes
Indenture. The Debt Exchange Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages
and attorneys' fees.

On June 24, 2016, the Debt Exchange Defendants filed a letter with
the court requesting leave to file a motion to dismiss the Debt
Exchange Lawsuit. The letter indicates that the Debt Exchange
Defendants intend to argue in a motion to dismiss that: (1) the
lead plaintiffs lack standing; (2) the Amended Complaint fails to
plead plausible facts demonstrating that the exchange offer
violated the TIA; (3) the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs are barred from
bringing their state law claims because the indentures prevent any
noteholder from filing these types of claims in court without
first presenting the claims to the indenture trustee and waiting
sixty days for the trustee to determine if it will bring suit; (4)
the Amended Complaint fails to plead plausible facts to
demonstrate the exchange offer breached the terms of the
indenture; (5) the Amended Complaint fails to plead plausible
facts to demonstrate the exchange offer breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (6) unjust enrichment
is not an available cause of action in these circumstances. The
letter suggests a briefing schedule, including that the Debt
Exchange Defendants file their motion to dismiss on August 19,
2016.

The Debt Exchange Lawsuit is in the early stages of litigation.
Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Debt Exchange Lawsuit
or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the
filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time
and expense that will be required to resolve the Debt Exchange
Lawsuit. The Debt Exchange Defendants believe the Debt Exchange
Lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
it.


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Vivendi SA Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Vivendi, S.A., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled In Re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-5571 (S.D.N.Y.).

The lawsuit arose from alleged violations of securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re Vivendi Universal, S.A.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 16-2770, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 25, 2016,
Vivendi, S.A., also filed an appeal in the Second Circuit from a
court ruling in the securities litigation.  That appellate case is
captioned as In Re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 16-2489.

Defendant-Appellant Vivendi, S.A., is represented by:

          James W. Quinn, Esq.
          Miranda S. Schiller, Esq.
          Gregory Silbert, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 833-3897
          E-mail: james.quinn@weil.com
                  miranda.schiller@weil.com
                  gregory.silbert@weil.com

               - and -

          Miguel A. Estrada, Esq.
          Mark Andrew Perry, Esq.
          Lucas Townsend, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8257
          Facsimile: (202) 530-9616
          E-mail: mestrada@gibsondunn.com
                  mperry@gibsondunn.com
                  ltownsend@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Caitlin Joan Halligan, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-3909
          E-mail: challigan@gibsondunn.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Prigest, S.A., and Tocqueville Finance, S.A.,
are represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7070
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Rosenbaum Partners, L.P., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Miami Group, consisting of the Retirement
System for General Employees of the City of Miami Beach, Oliver M.
Gerard, Francois R. Gerard, Prigest S.A. and Tocqueville Finance
S.A.; and Pearson-Doniger Family, consisting of two sister and
their respective family members Beatrice Doniger, Bruce Doniger,
Grandchildren's Trust by Bruce Doniger Trustee, Alison Doniger,
Michael Doniger, Edward B. Brunswick and Ruth Pearson Trust
Pearson Trustee, are represented by:

          James Stuart Notis, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Ruth Pearson Trust, Olivier Chastan, Reed S.
Clark, Daha Davis, Collen Dodi, Ruth Pearson Trust Pearson
Trustee, Edward B Brunswick, Michael Doniger, Alison Doniger,
Grandchildren's Trust by Bruce Doniger Trustee, Beatrice Doniger,
Jeffrey Kurtz and Gerard Morel are represented by:

          Brian Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          475 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com

Plaintiff-Appellee GAMCO Investors, Incorporated, is represented
by:

          Harold F. McGuire, Jr., Esq.
          D.F. MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          777 Westchester Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 368-0016
          Facsimile: (914) 368-0017
          E-mail: hmcguire@dfmcguire.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Oppenheim KapitalanlagegesellschaftmbH,
Baden-WurttembergischeInvestmentgesellschaftmbH, Barclays Global
Investors (Deutcshland), Cominvest Asset Management GMBH, Deutsche
Asset Management InvestmentgesellschaftmbH, DWS (Austria)
InvestmentgesellschaftmbH, DWS Investment GmbH, Erste-
SparinvestKapitalanlagegesellschaftm.b.H., Forsta AP-fonden,
Fortis Investment Management SA, Landesbank Berlin Investment
GmbH, LBBW Luxemburg S.A., Oppenheim Asset Management Services
S.a.r.l., Pioneer Investment Management Limited, Pioneer
Investment Management SGRPA, Pioneer Investments Austria GmbH,
Pioneer Investments KapitalanlagegesellschaftmbH,
RaiffeisenKapitalanlage-Gesellschaftm.b.H., SEB Investment
Management AB, Skandia Insurance Company Ltd., Union Asset
Management Holding AG, Universal-Investment-GesellschaftMbh and
SEB Investment GmbH are represented by:

          Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          P.O. Box 1792
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 216-9237
          E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Plaintiff KBC Asset Management N.V.,
Capitalia Asset Management SGR, S.p.A., Capitalia Investment
Management S.A., Eurizon Capital SGR S.p.A., KBC Asset Management
S.A., SjundeAp-Fonden, Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company,
Danske Invest Administration A/S, AFA Sjukforsakringsaktiebolag,
AMF Pension Fondforvaltning AB, Arbetsmarknadsforsakringar,
Pensionsforsakringsaktiebolag, PensionskassernesAdminstration A/S,
ArbejdsmarkedetsTillaegspension, IndustriensPensionsforikring A/S,
Arca SGR S.p.A., Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company, Prima
Societa' di Gestione del Risparmio S.p.A., Nordea Invest Fund
Management A/S, Nordea Fonder AB, Nordea Investment Funds Company
I.S.A., Nordea Fondene Norge AS, Nordea Fondbolag Finland AB,
Swedbank Robur Fonder AB, Fjarde AP-Fonden, Jeffrey Kurtz and Yong
Man Kim are represented by:

          Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 789-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 205-3961
          E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees AndraAp-Fonden, Bayern-Invest
KapitalanlagegesellschaftmbH, Deka International (Ireland)
Limited, Deka International S.A. Luxemburg,
DekaFundmasterInvestmentgesellschaft MBH, FideuramInvestimenti
S.G.R., FideuramGestions S.A., InterfundSica V, Frankfurt-Trust
Investment-Gesellschaft MBH, Frankfurt-Trust Invest Luxemburg AG,
Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH, HSBC Trinkaus&
Burkhardt AG, InternationaleKapitalanlagegesellschaftmbH, Meag
Munich Ergo KapitalanlagegesellschaftmbH, Meag Munich Ergo Asset
Management GMBH, Metzler Investment GmbH, Metzler Ireland LTD,
Nordcon Investment Management AG, Norges Bank, Swiss Life Holding
AG, Swiss Life Investment Management Holding AG, Swiss Life Asset
Management AG, Swiss Life Funds AG, Swiss Life (Belgium) S.A.,
Swiss Life Asset Management GmbH, Swiss Life Asset Management
(Nederland) B.V., TredjeAp-Fonden, Westlb Mellon Asset Management
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH, AlectaPensionsforsakring,
Omsesidigt, AFA Livforsakringsaktiebolag, AFA
Trygghetsforsakringsaktiebolag and Caisse de Depot et Placement du
Quebec are represented by:

          James Sabella, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8520
          E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Price Hal, W. Scott Polland, Jr., Nicholas A.
Radosevich, Pearson-Doniger Family, Rosenbaum Partners, L.P., Marc
Rovner, Sheldon Seid, Leslie Turbowitz and Yong Man Kim are
represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7070
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          475 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Liberty Media Corporation, LMC Capital LLC,
Liberty Programming Company LLC, LMC USA VI, Inc., LMC USA VII,
Inc., LMC USA VIII, Inc., LMC USA X, Inc., Liberty HSN LLC
Holdings, Inc., and Liberty Media International, Inc., are
represented by:

          Michael L. Calhoon, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 639-7954
          Facsimile: (202) 585-1096
          E-mail: michael.calhoon@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Alexandra Walsh, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          2001 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-7300
          E-mail: awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Allianz Global Investors
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH, Allianz Global Investors Luxembourg
S.A. and Allianz Global Investors Ireland Limited are represented
by:

David Kessler, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: dkessler@ktmc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee AGF Asset Management, S.A., is represented by:

          Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 789-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 205-3961
          E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 883-7079
          E-mail: dgoldsmith@labaton.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Barry Family, LP, Individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Eleanor Turberg, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Personal: 631-367-7100
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Bruce Doniger is represented by:

          Brian Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          475 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Lamken, Esq.
          MOLO LAMKEN LLP
          600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 556-2010
          Facsimile: (202) 536-2010
          E-mail: jlamken@mololamken.com

               - and -

          Stephen T. Rodd, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          E-mail: srodd@abbeyspanier.com

               - and -

          Michael Champlin Spencer, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          1 Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 946-9450
          Facsimile: (212) 273-4395
          E-mail: mspencer@milberg.com

The Other Plaintiffs-Appellees are Pensions Management (SWF)
Limited, CI Investments, Inc., Fortis Gesbeta SGIIC S.A., Gam Fund
Management Limited, Scottish Widows PLC, Scottish Widows Unit
Funds Limited, Lloyds TSB Group Pension Scheme No. 1, Lloyds TSB
Group Pension Scheme No. 2, Lloyds TSB Asset Finance Division
Pension Scheme, Lloyds TSB Offshore Funds Limited, Abbey Life
Assurance Company Limited, Irish Life Investment Managers Limited,
Eurizon Capital S.A., Allianz Global Investors France, S.A., WSV,
Norges Bank, and others, and Monte Paschi Asset Management S.G.R.
S.P.A.

The Other Defendants are Vivendi Universal, Jean-Marie Messier,
Guillaume Hannezo and Vivendi Universal S.A.


W.W. GRAINGER: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and
are in the process of completing briefing on their motions.

On April 5, 2013, David Davies filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of
all those who received faxes in connection with a 2009 marketing
campaign. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), by
sending fax advertisements that either were unsolicited and/or did
not contain a valid opt-out notice. The TCPA provides for
penalties of $500 to $1,500 for each non-compliant individual fax.

On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"District Court"). On June 27, 2014, the District Court granted
the Company's motion for a determination that the court should not
certify a class, finding that Davies was not an adequate class
representative. On October 2, 2014, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies' petition for
immediate review of the June 27, 2014 ruling. Davies may seek to
pursue an appeal of the June 27, 2014 ruling at the conclusion of
the District Court proceedings.

The Company subsequently moved to dismiss Davies' individual
claims based on the position that he had suffered no injury
relating to his notice-related claims on account of the single fax
he received, or otherwise. On April 4, 2016, the District Court
issued an opinion denying the Company's motion.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and are
in the process of completing briefing on their motions.

The Company said, "We believe we have strong legal and factual
defenses and intend to continue defending the Company vigorously
in the pending lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate
outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

Grainger is a broad-line distributor of maintenance, repair and
operating (MRO) supplies, and other related products and services
used by businesses and institutions. Grainger's operations are
primarily in the United States and Canada, with a presence in
Europe, Asia and Latin America.


WARDLAW CONSULTING: Whiteman Challenges Payment Scheme Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY D. WHITEMAN, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. WARDLAW CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., WILLIAM
F. WARDLAW, MICHAEL N. WARDLAW and REBECCA W. MEADOWS, Case No.
6:16-cv-00312-RP-JCM (W.D. Tex., August 5, 2016), is brought on
behalf of directors and managers of the Defendants, who were
allegedly not paid a salary, but were paid based on a percentage
of certain revenues, who worked more than 40 hours in at least one
workweek in the three years prior to the filing of the complaint
and who were not otherwise exempt from the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wardlaw Consulting Services, Inc. is a Texas-registered for-profit
corporation.  WCS provides catastrophic and other insurance
adjusting services to insurance companies throughout the United
States.  The Individual Defendants acted directly or indirectly in
the interest of the Company as to the Plaintiff as an Owner-
Director of WCS.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kerry V. O'Brien, Esq.
          1011 Westlake Drive
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 410-1960
          Facsimile: 512) 410-6171
          E-mail: ko@obrienlawpc.com

               - and -

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Jay Forester, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  forester@l-b-law.com


WARREN RESOURCES: Execs Face Investor's Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Martin O'Sullivan, writing for Bankruptcy Law360, reported that
David Speiser, a Warren Resources Inc. shareholder, hit executives
of the bankrupt oil and gas producer with a proposed class action
in Colorado federal court on Aug. 11.  The suit alleges they
misled investors over the dire effects low energy prices were
having on the company.  Mr. Speiser contends that Warren's current
chief executive officer, James A. Watt, and and former CEOs Philip
A. Epstein and Lance Peterson lied to investors by claiming that
Warren was in a position to weather falling natural gas prices.

                  About Warren Resources, Inc.

Warren Resources Inc., is an independent energy company engaged in
the exploration, development and production of domestic onshore
crude oil and natural gas reserves.  It is primarily focused on
the development of its waterflood oil recovery properties in the
Wilmington field within the Los Angeles Basin of California, its
position in the Marcellus Shale gas in northeastern Pennsylvania
and its coalbed methane, or CBM, natural gas properties located in
Wyoming.

Warren Resources, Inc., Warren E&P, Inc., Warren Resources of
California, Inc., Warren Marcellus LLC, Warren Energy Services,
LLC, and Warren Management Corp. each filed a voluntary petition
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead
Case No. 16-32760) on June 2, 2016.  The Debtors listed total
assets of $230 million and total debt of $545 million.

The Debtors have hired Andrews Kurth LLP as counsel, Jefferies LLC
as investment banker, Deloitte Transactions and Business Analytics
LLP as restructuring advisor and Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC as
claims, balloting and noticing agent.

Judge Marvin Isgur has been assigned the cases.

An official committee of unsecured creditors has not yet been
appointed in these cases by the Office of the United States
Trustee


WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Faces "Does" Suit in Western Dist. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against University of Washington. The
case is captioned Jane Does 1-10 and John Does 1-10, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
University of Washington, a Washington public corporation; David
Daleiden, an individual; and Zachary Freeman, an individual; the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01212-JLR (W.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. James L. Robart.

The University of Washington, commonly referred to as simply
Washington, UW, or informally U-Dub, is a public flagship research
university based in Seattle, Washington, United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David B Edwards, Esq.
          Steven W Fogg, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON
          BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP
          1001 4th Ave Ste 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          Telephone: (206) 625 8600
          E-mail: dedwards@corrcronin.com
                  sfogg@corrcronin.com

               - and -

          Janet S Chung, Esq.
          LEGAL VOICE
          907 Pine St., Ste 500
          SEATTLE, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-9552 x111
          E-mail: jchung@legalvoice.org

               - and -

          Jill Diane Bowman, Esq.
          Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES (WA)
          600 University St., Suite 3600
          SEATTLE, WA 98101-3197
          Telephone: (206) 624 0900
          Facsimile: 386-7500
          E-mail: jill.bowman@stoel.com
                  vanessa.power@stoel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theresa Ann Schrempp, Esq.
          SONKIN & SCHREMPP PLLC
          12715 Bel Red Road, Ste 150
          BELLEVUE, WA 98005
          Telephone: (206) 275 2870
          E-mail: theresas@lawyerseattle.com


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Recovered $4 Million from Insurers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
the Company is pursuing reimbursement from insurance carriers and
have recovered a total of $19 million of the settlement amount, of
which $4 million have been recovered in 2016.

The Company said, "On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to
settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v.
Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK
(S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and
court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2012
and alleged that we and certain current and former officers of
Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection
with the restatements of the Company's historical financial
statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012.

"On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a final judgment and an order
approving the settlement of the shareholder securities class
action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et
al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.).

"Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million
in 2015, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There
was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection
with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our
insurance carriers and have recovered a total of $19 million of
the settlement amount, of which $4 million have been recovered in
2016."

Weatherford conducts operations globally and has service and sales
locations in nearly all of the oil and natural gas producing
regions in the world.


WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING: Colque Seeks to Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ALBARO COLQUE, SANDRO PEREZ,
CECILIA FLORES ANDIA, RENE FERNANDO MOYA, PABLO VEGA PANOZO, and
RUVI GALICIA v. WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING CO., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00641-TSC (D.D.C.), move for conditional certification of
a class of persons similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act.  The
Plaintiffs seek to bring their FLSA and DCMWRA claims on behalf
of:

     "all non-exempt employees who performed construction duties
      for the Defendants at the Hyatt Hotel construction project
      at 2121 M St., N.W., Washington, DC, from on or about
      September, 2015 to the final disposition of this action."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=e8RLU5f4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Virginia R. Diamond, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: (703) 627-5510
          Facsimile: (703) 820-0630
          E-mail: vdiamond@ashcraftlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Jack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J. JACK
          11165 Stratfield Court, 2nd Floor
          Marriottsville, MD 21104
          Telephone: (410) 442-2232
          E-mail: mjack@mixterlaw.com


WILLBROS GROUP: Denies Remaining Allegations in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Litigation and
Regulatory Matters Related to the Company's October 21, 2014 Press
Release Announcing the Restatement of Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2014,
the Company filed an answer to the suit denying the remaining
allegations in the case.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28,
2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement.  The original defendants
in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer,
Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer.

On January 30, 2015, the court named two employee retirement
systems as Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated complaint, captioned In re Willbros Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, on March 31, 2015, adding as a defendant
John T. McNabb, II, the former chief executive officer who had
succeeded Mr. Harl.

On June 15, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, seeking unspecified damages and asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures in 2014, primarily regarding internal controls, the
performance of the Oil & Gas segment, compliance with debt
covenants and liquidity, certain financial results, and the
circumstances surrounding Mr. Harl's departure.

On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
At a hearing on May 24, 2016, the court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part.

On July 22, 2016, the Company filed an answer to the suit denying
the remaining allegations in the case, which complain of alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the Act regarding
internal controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas segment, and
Mr. Harl's departure.

The Company will vigorously defend against the remaining
allegations, which the Company believes are without merit. The
Company is not able at this time to determine the likelihood of
loss, if any, arising from this matter.


WORLD WRESTLING: Bagwell Seeks to Certify Class of Wrestlers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff files a motion for class certification to preserve
the class action issue, and reserves the right to amend the Motion
for future discovery in the matter styled Marcus Bagwell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01350-JCH
(D. Conn.).  Mr. Bagwell moves to certify a Class and Subclasses
consisting of:

     All individuals who have assigned their original and new
     intellectual property rights to WWE, in exchange for
     perpetual royalty payments from WWE's sales of past
     pay-per-view events or non pay-per-view productions.

     Excluded from the class are those who have signed a WWE
     "Nostalgia" or "Legends" Contract, a Booking Contract with
     WWE from January 1, 2004 -- prospectively (all WWE contracts
     in this time period declare that no royalties will be paid
     for internet subscriptions and video on demand fees), or a
     settlement agreement with WWE that releases any claims in
     law or equity against WWE, except for enforcement of any
     royalty obligations that may exist.

     The included class is further defined by these two
     Subclasses of former employees -- WWE Controlled Performers:

     (1) For the signing period of January 1, 1992 until
         January 1, 1999:

         All persons who signed a WWE Booking Contract when the
         definition of WWE Video Products was, "video programs."

     (2) For the signing period of January 1, 1999 until
         January 1, 2004:

         All persons who signed a WWE or WCW Booking Contract
         when the definition of WWE or WCW Video Products was,
         "video cassettes, videodiscs, CD ROM, or other
         technology, including technology not yet created."

On June 4, 2001, the Plaintiff signed as a professional wrestler
with World Championship Wrestling to perform under the ring name
of "Buff Bagwell" and WCW agreed to act as his promoter.  On
August 7, 2001, the Plaintiff signed an early Contract Release
with WCW, releasing all WWE obligations owed to the Plaintiff,
except royalty payment obligations pursuant to the Plaintiff's
June 4, 2001 Booking Contract.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tk69BGwU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brenden P. Leydon, Esq.
          TOOHER WOCL & LEYDON, L.L.C.
          80 Fourth Street
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 324-6164
          Facsimile: (203) 324-1407
          E-mail: BLeydon@tooherwocol.com

               - and -

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606-0500
          Facsimile: (312) 606-0207
          E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
                  matthew@krislovlaw.com


                            *********

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  * * *