CAR_Public/160822.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 167




                            Headlines


374 FOOD: Sued Over "Violations" of FLSA, New York Labor Law
7TH AVENUE: Violates FLSA's Overtime Provision, "Islam" Suit Says
AACER ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Denies Claims in Suit over St. Jude Deal
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYER: "Medina" Suit Seeks $50,000+ in Damages

AMERICAN CAMPUS: "Guadalupe" Suit Moved From Virginia to Texas
AMERICAN WATER: Certification for Liability & Damage Class Sought
AMERICAN WATER: Trial in Federal Case Rescheduled to October 25
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
ANDALOU NATURALS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Merchandising Practices

ANGIE'S LIST: Nov. 8 Final Fairness Hearing in "Moore" Case
ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Case in New Jersey Voluntarily Dismissed
ANGIE'S LIST: "Zygelman" Case in N.D. Cal. Voluntarily Dismissed
ANGIE'S LIST: Conditional Certification Bid in "Williams" Opposed
ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Suit by 3 Former Employees in S.D. Ind.

APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Deal for Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel Okayed
ARES CAPITAL: "Sutton" Shareholder Class Action Filed in Maryland
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Toss Javelin Investors' Suit Pending
ATLAS AIR: Settlement in Pricing Suit Awaits Final Court Approval
AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Sued in Cal. Over Reduced Insurance Claim

BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Clark" Suit in Ariz. Over "Data Breach"
BAYLOR COLLEGE: Aguocha-Ohakweh Amends Class Certification Bid
BBX CAPITAL: "Stein" Files Suit Over Merger with BFC
BEST WINGERS: Faces "Godinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Pradaxa(R)

BULL ROGERS: "Gowens" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
C LEVEL LLC: Accused by "Owens" Suit of Unpaid OT and Retaliation
CALIX INC: Aug 26 Hearing to Approve Occam Merger Case Settlement
CAREER EDUCATION: Still Defends "Surrett" Student Litigation
CAREER EDUCATION: Appeal in "Wilson" Still Pending

CHEVRON STATIONS: "Williams" Seeks Damages Under Cal. Labor Code
CLEAN HARBORS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissal of Securities Case Under Appeal
COPLEY PLAZA: "Saban" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Statute
DALLAS CENTRAL: Security Seeks Reductions of Property Values

DALLAS CENTRAL: ARC Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
DALLAS CENTRAL: RPI Cedarhill Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
DALLAS CENTRAL: El Tahhan Sues Over Excessive Property Value
DINER 84: Faces "Sibinski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Scally" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: 9th Cir. Appeal in Investors' Suit Underway
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Antitrust Class Action Pending in Calif.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: AACERS Sues Over Comcast Merger Deal
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Bumba Sues Over Comcast Merger Deal
DRIFTWOOD DAIRY: "Collins" Seeks Damages Under Labor Code

EAST RIDGE: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EEG INC: Sued for Over-charging of Salon Education Course
EIGHT O'CLOCK: Faces "Sorgenti" Suit in N.Y. Over Coffee Bags
EMPIRE CITY: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Law
ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Investors Sue in Georgia Over IPO

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Court Asked to Decertify & Dismiss OT Claims
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over AmSurg Corp. Merger
FITZGERALD EQUITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lugo" Suit Claims
FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Hendley" Securities Suit in S.D. New York
FORTRESS SECURITY: "Real" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code

G1 TOWING: "Castaneda" Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code
GANDARA MENTAL: "Romero" Seeks Overtime Wages Under Hour Laws
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Walsh Estate Suit Pending in N.D. Ohio
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: $219MM Securities Case Settlement Okayed
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: City of Hialeah Employees' Suit Ongoing

GNC HOLDINGS: 28 DMAA & Aegeline Product Liability Claims Pending
GNC HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Tuesday in "Brewer" Case
GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defending "Naranjo" Meal & Rest Break Suit
GROUPON INC: Settlement in Securities Litigation Granted Final OK
GROUPON INC: Appeal in Marketing & Sales Practices Case Dismissed

HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Motion to Amend "Halloran" Suit Pending
HARRIS COUNTY: Eagle Creek Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
HARRIS COUNTY: FCL Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
HARRIS COUNTY: Jones Road Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
HARRIS COUNTY: Yorktown Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value

HOMZ MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sauer" Suit in Western Dist. of Wisconsin
HUNTSMAN CORP: Fails to Shake Off Consumer Class Suit
IDEAL TELECOM: Sued in Florida Cir. Ct. Over Junk Faxing
IESI MD CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Poe" Suit Asserts
IMS HEALTH: Has Not Yet Responded to Motion for Injunction

INTEX RECREATION: "Mirescu" Suit Transferred to S.D. of Texas
JAMES MCFADDEN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Weisberg" Suit Says
JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Anew
KARAMPELAS INVESTMENTS: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LA QUINTA: Defending Against "Beisel" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.

MARATHON PETROLEUM: MarkWest Merger Litigation Now Dismissed
MARKETO INC: Defending "Porwal" Class Suit in California
MARKETO INC: Request for TRO in "Rosati" Denied
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces ERISA Suit by 401(k) Planholders
MEDIA MIX: Faces "Affolder" Suit in Central Dist. of California

MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Two Merger Class Actions Filed in S.D. Tex.
MINNESOTA: Faces "Gamble" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violation
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Pincon and Chung Cases
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Preliminary Settlement Discussions Underway
NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Rabin" Suit Still Pending

NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Providence" Suit Still Pending
NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Lanier" Suit Still Pending
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA
NOBILIS HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss "Schott" Suit Under Advisement
NOBILIS HEALTH: "Capelli" Suit Underway in Ontario

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Palacci" Suit Says
ONEOK INC: Updates on Gas Index Pricing Litigation
ORBITAL ATK: Violates Securities Laws, "Knurr" Class Suit Alleges
PACIFIC COAST: Preliminary Approval of "Welch" Settlement Sought
PASTEUR MEDICAL: "Santana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

RELYPSA INC: Faces "Lu" Class Suit Over Proposed Sale to Galenica
REVCLAIMS LLC: "Hargett" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark.
SAIGON CAFE: Faces "Qian" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAPUTO CHEESE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Karbash" Sues Over Sale to Nichi-Iko

SPEEDPAY INC: Motion for Judgment in "Pincus" Case Pending
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: $39.25MM Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
STONERIDGE INC: Class Certification Bid in "Verde" Case Pending
STONERIDGE INC: "Royal" Class Action Remains Pending in Oklahoma
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Order Decertifying Class Reversed

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Briefing to Be Completed in August 2016
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settles Several Robocall Suits
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defending "Kincaid" Action in N.D. Ill.
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Failure to Pay DCIC Instructors OT
URBAN SETTLEMENT: "Dunn" Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code

US PIZZA CO: Fails to Pay Servers Minimum Wages, Latcham Claims
VEREIT INC: Case Management Conference Scheduled for September 9
VEREIT INC: Case Before Maryland Appeals Court Still Pending
VEREIT INC: Cole Litigation Matter Remains Pending
VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Litigation Remains Pending

VERISK ANALYTICS: "DiSalvo" Action Moved to N.D. Ohio
VERISK ANALYTICS: Interthinx Litigation Remains Pending
VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in ISO Litigation Underway
VULCAN MATERIALS: First Trial Date Set for March 2017
WASHINGTON SQUARE: "Jennings" Action Remains Pending in Illinois

WESTERN UNION: Tennille and Smet Cases Pending in Colorado Court
WESTERN UNION: Settlement in "Douglas" Case Awaits Final Approval
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Stockholders' Amended Complaint Due Aug. 31
WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Bagwell" Suit in District of Connecticut
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 1,167 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending in MDL

WRIGHT MEDICAL: 4 US & 5 Non-US Suits Over Modular Neck Pending
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Updates on Wright-Tornier Merger Litigation
Y.Y.K. ENTERPRISES: "Fuselier" Suit Moved to S.D. of California
YORK BAGELS: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime


                            *********


374 FOOD: Sued Over "Violations" of FLSA, New York Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO CASTILLO MARCELINO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. 374 FOOD, INC. (d/b/a TRIBECA BAGELS),
TIRAN TSADOK, and HAYIM TSADOK, Case No: 1:16-cv-06287 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 9, 2016), seeks alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor
Law.

Tribeca Bagels is a bagel shop/deli owned by Tiran Tsadok and
Hayim Tsadok.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


7TH AVENUE: Violates FLSA's Overtime Provision, "Islam" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ISLAM, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. 7th AVENUE GIFTS LLC, JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10, and JAHAGIR AFZAL, individually, Case No. 1:16-
cv-06424 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), is brought for damages and
equitable relief based upon alleged violations committed by the
Defendants against the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by the
overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Acts and the New York Labor Law.

7th Avenue Gifts LLC is a New York limited liability company
headquartered in New York City.  The Defendants are a chain of
stores that sell souvenirs, which are located throughout New York
and that operate as a single business enterprise, and that
together operate at least three popular souvenir retail
establishments under different names.  Jahagir Afzal operates and
manages each of the stores, overseeing their operations on a daily
basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dong Phuong V. Nguyen, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
          E-mail: dpvn@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


AACER ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dania Reyes-Castro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aacer Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Aacer Flooring,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01078-WCG (E.D. Wis., August 12, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Aacer Acquisition, LLC manufactures hardwood flooring products for
the residential, sports, and recreational markets at its facility
in Peshtigo, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Summer Murshid, Esq.
      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Timothy Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI  53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
              ljohnson@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Denies Claims in Suit over St. Jude Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that two purported
shareholder derivative class action lawsuits were filed in May
2016 against St. Jude Medical, its board of directors, and Abbott
and two of its subsidiaries in the Minnesota District Court,
Second Judicial District (Ramsey County).  Plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the members of the St. Jude Medical board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties to St. Jude Medical
shareholders by entering into the agreement, and that Abbott aided
and abetted those breaches.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, as
well as actual and punitive damages. Abbott denies all substantive
allegations in the case.


ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYER: "Medina" Suit Seeks $50,000+ in Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLYN MEDINA, the Plaintiff, v. ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYER
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 160801313 (Phil, Cty. Ct.,
Aug. 10, 2016), seeks in excess of $50,000.00 in monetary damages.

The Defendant allegedly caused a consumer report to be procured
without first providing an adequate disclosure, pursuant to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Administrative Employer provides professional services. The
Company provides benefits such as controls costs, saves time and
reduces paperwork, increased job satisfaction, enhanced benefits
packages, reduces accounting costs, and workers' compensation
coverage to the customers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          Bruce M. Ludwig, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 656 3679
          Facsimile: 215 561 5135
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com


AMERICAN CAMPUS: "Guadalupe" Suit Moved From Virginia to Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Guadalupe v. American Campus Communities
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00487, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
(Austin).  The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-00967 to the proceeding.

Tyasia Guadalupe brought the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
to recover from the Defendants alleged unpaid wages, damages for
improper wage deductions, and damages for unlawfully passing
employer costs to the employees.

American Campus Communities, Inc. is a Maryland real estate
investment trust.  The Defendants hold a noncontrolling equity
interest in a joint venture that owns a military housing
privatization project with the United States Navy to design,
develop, construct, renovate, and manage unaccompanied soldier
housing located on naval bases in Norfolk and Newport News,
Virginia (the "Joint Venture").  The properties comprising the
Joint Venture are known as "HomePort Hampton Roads".

Plaintiff Tyasia Guadalupe is represented by:

          Joshua Michael David, Esq.
          Nicholas Anthony Nunes, Esq.
          DAVID KAMP & FRANK LLC
          739 Thimble Shoals Blvd., Suite 105
          Newport News, VA 23606
          Telephone: (757) 595-4500
          Facsimile: (757) 595-6723
          E-mail: jdavid@davidkampfrank.com
                  nanunes@davidkampfrank.com

Defendants American Campus Communities Services, Inc., American
Campus Communities, Inc., and American Campus Communities
Operating Partnership, L.P., are represented by:

          Scott William Kezman, Esq.
          Stanley G. Barr, Jr., Esq.
          KAUFMAN & CANOLES PC
          150 W Main St.
          PO Box 3037
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 624-3008
          Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
          E-mail: swkezman@kaufcan.com
                  sgbarr@kaufcan.com


AMERICAN WATER: Certification for Liability & Damage Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the
case related to the West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries
Chemical Spill, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion
seeking certification for liability and damage classes.

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom
Industries, Inc. leaked two substances, 4-methylcyclohexane
methanol, or MCHM, and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of polyglycol ethers, into
the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company
("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia.
After having been alerted to the leak of MCHM by the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection, WVAWC took immediate steps
to gather more information about MCHM, augment its treatment
process as a precaution, and begin consultations with federal,
state and local public health officials. As soon as possible after
it was determined that the augmented treatment process would not
fully remove the MCHM, a joint decision was reached in
consultation with the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health to
issue a "Do Not Use" order for all of its approximately 93,000
customer accounts in parts of nine West Virginia counties served
by the Charleston treatment plant. The order addressed the use of
water for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing, but did not
affect continued use of water for sanitation and fire protection.

Over the next several days, WVAWC and an interagency team of state
and federal officials engaged in extensive sampling and testing to
determine if levels of MCHM were below one part per million (1
ppm), a level that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention ("CDC") and the EPA indicated would be protective of
public health. Beginning on January 13, 2014, based on the results
of the continued testing, the Do Not Use order was lifted in
stages to help ensure the water system was not overwhelmed by
excessive demand, which could have caused additional water quality
and service issues.

By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC's customers were subject to the
Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance suggesting that pregnant
women avoid consuming the water until the chemicals were at non-
detectable levels remained in place. In addition, based on saved
samples taken on or before January 18, 2014, PPH/DiPPH was no
longer detected in the water supply as of January 18, 2014.

On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all points of testing
throughout its water distribution system indicated that levels of
MCHM were below 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The interagency
team established 10 ppb as the "non-detect" level of MCHM in the
water distribution system based on the measurement capabilities of
the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC continued to work with
laboratories to test down to below 2 ppb of MCHM and announced on
March 3, 2014, that it had cleared the system to below this level.

To date, there are 69 pending cases against WVAWC with respect to
this matter in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in
Kanawha, Boone and Putnam counties.

Fifty-three of the state court cases naming WVAWC, and one case
naming both WVAWC and American Water Works Service Company, Inc.
("AWWSC," and together with WVAWC and the Company, the "American
Water Defendants") were removed to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

On December 17, 2015, the federal district court entered orders
remanding 52 of the previously removed cases back to the West
Virginia Circuit Courts for further proceedings (two of the
previously removed cases had been dismissed in the interim).

Following that order, seven additional cases were filed against
WVAWC in West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha and Putnam
counties with respect to this matter.

On January 28, 2016, all of the state court cases were referred to
West Virginia's Mass Litigation Panel for further proceedings. On
June 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class
action complaint. The second amended consolidated class action
complaint names WVAWC as a defendant and alleges claims of, among
other things, negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass,
strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity, breach of
contract, breach of statutory implied warranty, violation of the
West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act, strict liability for
failure to warn, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
medical monitoring and punitive damages.

On July 6, 2016, the defendants filed an answer in response to
these claims. On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed a class
certification motion seeking certification for liability and
damage classes, including businesses and residents who were
customers of WVAWC's Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant ("KVTP") on
January 9, 2014, all West Virginia persons who suffered wage loss
as a result of the spill and personal injury and medical
monitoring for West Virginia residents within the affected
counties that were exposed to contaminated water as a result of
the spill.

American Water Works Company, Inc. is the largest and most
geographically diverse investor-owned publicly-traded water and
wastewater utility company in the United States, as measured both
by operating revenue and population served.


AMERICAN WATER: Trial in Federal Case Rescheduled to October 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the
case related to the West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries
Chemical Spill, four of the cases pending before the federal
district court were consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an
amended consolidated class action complaint for those cases (the
"Federal action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several
plaintiffs who allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of
property and tap water or other specified adverse consequences as
a result of the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported
class of all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or
exposed to water contaminated with Crude MCHM and provided by
WVAWC in Logan, Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam, and
Kanawha Counties and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West
Virginia as of January 9, 2014.

The amended consolidated complaint names several individuals and
corporate entities as defendants, including the American Water
Defendants. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged
business or economic losses; unspecified damages or a mechanism
for recovery to address a variety of alleged costs, loss of use of
property, personal injury and other consequences allegedly
suffered by purported class members; punitive damages and certain
additional relief, including the establishment of a medical
monitoring program to protect the purported class members from an
alleged increased risk of contracting serious latent disease.

On April 9, 2015, the court in the Federal action denied a motion
to dismiss all claims against the Company for lack of personal
jurisdiction. A separate motion to dismiss filed by AWWSC and
WVAWC (and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses
in the Federal action was resolved by the court on June 3, 2015.
The court dismissed three causes of action but denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to the remaining causes of actions and
allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the various claims
for damages alleged in their amended consolidated complaint.

On July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a class defined to include persons who resided in
dwellings served by the KVTP on January 9, 2014, persons who owned
businesses served by the KVTP on January 9, 2014, and hourly
employees who worked for such businesses. The plaintiffs sought a
class-wide determination of liability against the American Water
Defendants, among others, and of damages to the three groups of
plaintiffs as a result of the "Do Not Use" order issued after the
Freedom Industries spill.

On October 8, 2015, the court in the Federal action granted in
part and denied in part the plaintiffs' class certification
motion. The court certified a class addressing the alleged fault
of Eastman Chemical for tort claims and the alleged fault of the
American Water Defendants for tort and breach of contract claims,
as well as the comparative fault of Freedom Industries. However,
the court granted the joint motion by defendants to exclude
certain expert testimony, disallowing the testimony of plaintiffs'
economic damages experts, and denied class certification as to any
damages, including punitive damages. Thus, determination or
quantification of damages, if any, would be made in subsequent
proceedings on an individual basis.

On December 17, 2015, the court in the Federal action originally
entered a scheduling order that provided for the trial on class
issues to begin in July 2016. During the first week of January
2016, three additional cases were filed against one or more of the
American Water Defendants, as well as others, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia with respect to
this matter.

On March 25, 2016, the court in the Federal action entered an
order extending the schedule for events through briefing related
to dispositive motions and expert challenges and noting that
further events in the case would be set by additional orders to be
issued by the court in due course.

On May 10, 2016, each of the parties in the Federal action filed
motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude experts,
followed by responses on June 3, 2016 and final reply memoranda on
June 16, 2016. On July 7, 2016, the court in the Federal action
rescheduled the trial to begin on October 25, 2016.

Court-directed mediations were held at the end of September 2015
and June 2016 with the assistance of private mediators.
Representatives of the American Water Defendants, Eastman
Chemical, and the plaintiffs in both the Federal action and the
state actions, as well as insurance carriers for certain of the
defendants, participated in these mediation sessions. No
resolution was reached and no further mediation discussions have
been scheduled to date.

American Water Works Company, Inc. is the largest and most
geographically diverse investor-owned publicly-traded water and
wastewater utility company in the United States, as measured both
by operating revenue and population served.


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Ampio and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint
remains pending.

On May 8, 2015 and May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the
Company brought two putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court in the Central District of California,
Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03474-TJH and Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-03640-TJH (the "Securities Class Actions"), alleging
that Ampio and certain of its current and former officers violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting
information regarding the STEP study.

The cases were consolidated, and on February 8, 2016, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Sections
11 and 15 under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of common stock from January 13, 2014 through
August 21, 2014, including purchasers in the Company's offering on
February 28, 2014.

On April 8, 2016, Ampio and the other defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint. The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Ampio Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
primarily developing compounds that decrease inflammation by (i)
inhibiting specific pro-inflammatory compounds by affecting
specific pathways at the protein expression and at the
transcription level; (ii) activating specific phosphatase or
depleting available phosphate needed for the inflammation process;
and (iii) decreasing vascular permeability.


ANDALOU NATURALS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Merchandising Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA YORK and STEPHANIE TEACHOUT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. ANDALOU NATURALS, INC. Case
No: 3:16-cv-00894-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill., August 9, 2016), alleges
deceptive, unfair, and false merchandising practices regarding
Defendant(s)' Andalou Naturals line of hair care products.

Andalou Naturals, Inc. manufactures fruit stem cell-based skin
care, hair care, bath, and body care products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
     ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
     8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109
     St. Louis, MO 63144
     Phone: 314-258-0212
     E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

        - and -

     Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STUART L. COCHRAN, PLLC
     12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (214) 300-1765
     E-mail: scochran@scochranlaw.com


ANGIE'S LIST: Nov. 8 Final Fairness Hearing in "Moore" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, 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 court has scheduled a
fairness hearing for November 8, 2016, in the case, Moore, et al.
v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD.

On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges claims for breaches
of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud
and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
premised on the allegations that the Company does not disclose
that it accepts advertising payments from service providers or
that the payments allegedly will impact the service provider
letter-grade ratings, the content and availability of reviews
about the provider and the provider's place in search-result
rankings.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2015, which was
granted in part on August 7, 2015. In particular, the plaintiff's
claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
and unjust enrichment were dismissed from the action. The parties
proceeded to exchange extensive written and document discovery and
conducted depositions. Discovery closed on April 14, 2016.

During the discovery period, certain other cases with similar
allegations also were filed by some of the same plaintiffs'
counsel in federal court in California (Zygelman v. Angie's List,
Inc., 3:16-cv-00276-SI) and New Jersey (Glick v. Angie's List,
Inc., 2:16-cv-00546-MCA-MAH). Following mediation sessions held on
April 4, 2016 and April 12, 2016, the parties executed a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") on April 19, 2016 to settle
the claims on a class-wide basis. Among other relief, the
settlement provides for a cash payment of up to $2,350 to create a
fund for the payment of cash to settlement class members and for
the payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel as
approved by the court. Settlement class members will have the
option of sharing in the cash fund or selecting a free period of
membership of up to four months depending on the date and length
of their membership with Angie's List. The settlement also
provides certain prospective relief in the form of enhanced
explanations in the Company's Membership Agreement and in
responses to Frequently Asked Questions concerning, among other
things, the advertising revenue earned from service providers.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company recorded a $3,500
contingent liability related to this matter in the first quarter
of 2016, and this amount includes the cost of the cash fund
described above as well as the payment of reasonable notice and
administration costs, attorneys' fees and an assumption of revenue
the Company will forego as a result of certain class members
selecting the option for a free period of membership. As part of
the settlement, plaintiffs' counsel filed, and the Company did not
oppose, a motion to amend the complaint in the Moore matter to add
both the Zygelman and Glick plaintiffs as named plaintiffs for
settlement purposes only, as well as a motion for preliminary
approval of a class-wide settlement.

By order dated July 11, 2016, the court granted the motion to
amend the complaint, and the conditional amended class action
complaint was filed as of that date.

On July 12, 2016, the court entered an order granting the
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class
action settlement, which, among other things, ordered that notice
of the settlement be provided to the settlement class and
scheduled a fairness hearing for November 8, 2016. The proposed
settlement remains subject to final court approval.


ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Case in New Jersey Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, 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 case, Glick v.
Angie's List, Inc., 2:16-cv-00546-MCA-MAH, has been voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

On February 1, 2016, Gary Glick, an Angie's List member, filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff alleged that the
Company deceives its consumers by representing that service
providers "can't pay" or "don't pay" to be on Angie's List, while
concealing that service providers pay advertising fees to
influence their search result ranking, and further asserts other
claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Moore
litigation. The plaintiff's complaint includes claims for breach
of contract and for a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act. The Glick action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
on July 13, 2016, in accordance with the aforementioned class
action settlement.


ANGIE'S LIST: "Zygelman" Case in N.D. Cal. Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, 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 case, Zygelman v.
Angie's List, Inc., 3:16-cv-00276-SI, has been voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

On January 15, 2016, Michelle Zygelman, an Angie's List member,
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
plaintiff alleged claims substantially similar to those in the
Glick action but is seeking relief under California consumer
protection statutes. The Zygelman action was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice on July 14, 2016, in accordance with the
aforementioned class action settlement.


ANGIE'S LIST: Conditional Certification Bid in "Williams" Opposed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, 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 has filed
its response brief in opposition to the motion for conditional
certification in the case, Williams, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc.,
1:16-cv-878.

On April 20, 2016, a group of former employees filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay (i)
wages earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage
Statutes and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting
payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other charges.

A first and second amended complaint was filed, adding additional
named plaintiffs, and the Company's answer to the second amended
complaint was filed on July 26, 2016. The plaintiffs filed a
motion for conditional certification on June 10, 2016, and the
Company filed its response brief in opposition to motion for
conditional certification on July 15, 2016.

The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if
any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has not established
any reserve for this matter.


ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Suit by 3 Former Employees in S.D. Ind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, 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 on April 20, 2016,
three former employees filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  The case is,
Crabtree, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., 1:16-cv-877.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay (i) wages
earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Statutes
and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting payment of all
damages, including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and
other charges. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in
May 2016, adding one additional Indiana wage statute claim.

The Company filed its answer and defenses on June 9, 2016. The
Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if
any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has not established
any reserve for this matter.


APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Deal for Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, 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
court has approved a stipulation seeking the appointment of
interim co-lead counsel in the merger class action lawsuit.

On February 26, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (as amended, the "Merger Agreement") with Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("AMTG"), and
Arrow Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger Sub"), pursuant to which
the Company will acquire AMTG for an aggregate purchase price
equal to 89.25% of AMTG's book value determined in accordance with
the Merger Agreement, plus the assumption of $172,500 of AMTG's
8.0% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock (the
"AMTG Preferred Stock").

The book value of AMTG, and therefore the actual purchase price
payable, was determined as of July 22, 2016 (the "Pricing Date"),
and will be subject to adjustment in the event that the closing of
the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement does not
occur by September 5, 2016. The aggregate number of shares of
Company common stock issuable under the Merger Agreement is
limited to 13,400,000 shares at a value of $16.75 per share, and
the remainder of the consideration will be paid in cash. Upon the
closing, each outstanding share of AMTG common stock will be
converted into the right to receive (i) 0.417571 shares of Company
common stock and (ii) $6.86 in cash, without interest; provided,
however, that the cash portion of the merger consideration may be
subject to certain adjustments.  In addition, each share of AMTG
Preferred Stock will be converted into one share of preferred
stock, par value $0.01 per share, of a newly-designated series of
the Company's preferred stock, which the Company expects will be
designated as 8.00% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual
Preferred Stock.

After the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement,
two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed First
Merger (as defined in the Merger Agreement), captioned Aivasian v.
Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532 and
Wiener v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-
001837, were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, (the
"Court"). A putative class and derivative lawsuit was later filed
in the Court captioned Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc.,
No. 24-C-16-002610.

Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among
other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In
Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Crago
complaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaint
includes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendants
AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG (the "AMTG Board"), ARI,
Merger Sub, Apollo and Athene and alleges, among other things,
that the members of the AMTG Board breached their fiduciary duties
to the AMTG stockholders and that the other corporate defendants
aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches.

The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that
the proposed First Merger involves inadequate consideration, was
the result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and
includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions
with Athene are unfair and that the registration statement on Form
S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially
misleading disclosures and omits certain material information.

The operative complaint seeks, among other things, certification
of the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the
First Merger, unspecified damages, and an award of other
unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,
which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016.

The defendants believe that the claims asserted in the complaints
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.


ARES CAPITAL: "Sutton" Shareholder Class Action Filed in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ares Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Larry Sutton on or
about June 24, 2016, filed a putative shareholder class action
allegedly on behalf of holders of the common stock of American
Capital against the members of American Capital's board of
directors in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland in
connection with the American Capital Acquisition. The action
alleges that the American Capital's directors failed to adequately
discharge their fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of
American Capital by failing to take steps necessary to obtain for
the shareholders the highest value available in the marketplace
for their shares in the proposed American Capital Acquisition. The
complaint further alleges that the directors exacerbated this
failure by including deal protection devices in the proposed
merger with the Company that precluded other bidders from making a
higher offer to American Capital.

A purported claim is asserted against the Company for aiding and
abetting American Capital's directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin the shareholder
vote on the proposed American Capital Acquisition until American
Capital adopts a process to obtain a transaction providing the
best available terms for the shareholders. In the event that the
proposed American Capital Acquisition is completed, the complaint
seeks to recover compensatory damages for all losses resulting
from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Company believes
that this claim is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against it.

Ares Capital is a specialty finance company that is a closed-end,
non-diversified management investment company incorporated in
Maryland.


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Toss Javelin Investors' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
remains pending.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN.  The Tender Offer and Merger are
collectively defined herein as the "Transactions." All nine suits
name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board of directors
prior to the Merger (of which eight are current members of
ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual Defendants") and JMI
Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as defendants. Certain
cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants.

The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the
putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the
Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to
take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders;
ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed
to disclose material information about the Transactions; took
steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair
advantage by failing to adequately solicit other potential
acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable
barriers to other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that
ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The
lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief, to
enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the
Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

On April 25, 2016, the court issued an order consolidating the
eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-
16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland cases
as interim lead co-counsel.

On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.

On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. On July 27, 2016,
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
Defendants were to respond with their reply on August 11, 2016, at
which time the Motion to Dismiss will be fully briefed and ripe
for ruling from the Court.

Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants
believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are without merit
and intends to defend such claims vigorously; however, there can
be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual
Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these lawsuits to
which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any such
litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary
damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of
former stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending the
litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Due
to the preliminary nature all of these suits, ARMOUR is not able
at this time to estimate their outcome.

ARMOUR and its subsidiaries, including JAVELIN, is a Maryland
corporation formed to invest in and manage a leveraged portfolio
of MBS and mortgage loans.


ATLAS AIR: Settlement in Pricing Suit Awaits Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
settlement in a class action lawsuit related to alleged pricing
practices is still subject to final court approval.

The Company and Old Polar were named defendants, along with a
number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the
U.S. arising from allegations about the pricing practices of Old
Polar and a number of air cargo carriers. These actions were all
centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. Polar was later joined as an additional defendant. The
consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the
market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad
through the use of surcharges, in violation of U.S., state, and
European Union antitrust laws. The suit sought treble damages and
attorneys' fees.

On January 7, 2016, the Company, Old Polar, and Polar entered into
a settlement agreement to settle all claims by participating class
members against the Company, Old Polar and Polar. The Company,
Polar, and Old Polar deny any wrongdoing, and there is no
admission of any wrongdoing in the settlement agreement. Pursuant
to the settlement agreement, the Company, Old Polar and Polar have
agreed to make installment payments over three years to settle the
plaintiffs' claims, with payments of $35.0 million paid on January
15, 2016, $35.0 million due on or before January 15, 2017, and
$30.0 million due on or before January 15, 2018. The U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an order
granting preliminary approval of the settlement on January 12,
2016. The settlement is still subject to final court approval.


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Sued in Cal. Over Reduced Insurance Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD HODGES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, and DOES 1-100, the
Defendant, Case No. BC628878 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016),
seeks monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, and
injunctive relief arising from Defendant's breach of its contracts
with consumers in its adjustment of homeowner insurance claims for
repairs.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant applies a discount of five
percent from the total cost of repair when the repair estimate is
written by a contractor who participates in Defendant's Member
Preferred Repair Program. The Defendant applies the discount to
the claim whether or not a Program participant actually performs
the repair. Thus, while Defendant gives its insureds the
impression that they are receiving a "discount", the Program is
actually a means for Defendant to reduce the size of the insurance
claim -- in some instances, below the cost of repair.

Automobile Club of Southern California is the Southern California
affiliate of the American Automobile Association federation of
motor clubs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Denise H. Sze, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229 5961
          Facsimile: (310) 229 5763

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          G. James Strenio, Esq.
          Robert J. Dart, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APe
          201 Wilshire Boulevard
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 395 2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395 2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  James@kicklawfirm.com
                  Robert@k:icklawfirin.com


BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Clark" Suit in Ariz. Over "Data Breach"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Banner Health, Case No: 2:16-cv-02696-SRB (D. Ariz.,
August 9, 2016), was filed on behalf of all others similarly
situated whose personal and non-public information, including
names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers, Social Security
numbers, credit card information, medical information (physician
names, dates of service, clinical information, insurance
information, etc.), and physician or provider credentials (DEA
registration numbers, National Provider Identifiers, etc.) was
allegedly compromised in a massive breach of Defendant Banner
Health's computer servers.


Banner Health is a health system operating in Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, and Wyoming. It operates
29 hospitals, including three academic medical centers and other
related health entities and services, with more than 47,000
employees.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul L. Stoller, Esq.
     Lincoln Combs, Esq.
     GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
     2575 E. Camelback Road, Suite 1100
     Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
     Phone: (602) 530-8054
     Fax: (602) 530-8500
     E-Mail: paul.stoller@gknet.com
             lincoln.combs@gknet.com

        - and -

     Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
     Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
     CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
     One Haverford Centre
     361 Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Phone: (610) 642-8500
     E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
             awf@chimicles.com


BAYLOR COLLEGE: Aguocha-Ohakweh Amends Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh,
et al. v. Baylor College of Medicine, Harris County Hospital
District, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00903 (S.D. Tex.), file their
amended motion to certify class.  The Plaintiffs seek to be class
representatives for this class definition:

     i. All harmed victims of 14th Amendment U.S. Constitutional
        Rights deprivations or subjections to deprivation of such
        rights in the course of providing health care services in
        Texas and by persons or entities acting under the color
        of law;

    ii. All harmed victims of conspiracy for the purpose of
        impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating in any
        manner, the due course of justice in any State or
        Territory with the United States with intent to deny to
        any citizen the equal protection of the laws, and said
        wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the course
        of providing health care services in Texas; and

   iii. All harmed victims of any conspiracy or any act in
        furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, to either
        directly or indirectly deprive any persons of the equal
        protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
        immunities under the whereby another is injured in his
        person or property, or deprived of having and exercising
        any right or privilege of a citizen of Texas, and said
        wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the course
        of providing health care services.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Ernest C. Adimora-
Nweke,
Jr., Esq., of Adimora Law Firm, PLLC, and his firm's designated
co-counsel or of counsel (if any) as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cojjRAa5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Jr. Esq.
          ADIMORA LAW FIRM
          5100 Westheimer Rd., Suite 200
          Telephone: (281) 940-5170
          E-mail: Ernest@adimoralaw.com

Defendant Harris County Hospital District d/b/a Harris Health
System
d/b/a Ben Taub Hospital is represented by:

          Ebon Swofford, Esq.
          ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
          L. Sara Thomas, Esq.
          DEPUTY MANAGING ATTORNEY
          2525 Holly Hall, Suite 190
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (713) 566-6559
          Facsimile: (713) 566-6558
          E-mail: Ebon.Swofford@harrishealth.org
                  Sara.thomas2@harrishealth.org

Defendant Baylor College of Medicine and its employee defendants
are
represented by:

          Jeffrey B. McClure, Esq.
          Laura Trenaman, Esq.
          ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          600 Travis Street, Suite 4200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 220-4200
          Telecopier: (713) 220-4285
          E-mail: jeffmcclure@andrewskurth.com
                  ltrenaman@andrewskurth.com

Defendant John Michael Halphen is represented by:

          John R. Strawn Jr., Esq.
          Andrew L. Pickens, Esq.
          STRAWN PICKENS LLP
          Pennzoil Place, South Tower
          711 Louisiana, Suite 1850
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 659-9600
          Facsimile: (713) 659-9601
          E-mail: jstrawn@strawnpickens.com
                  apickens@strawnpickens.com


BBX CAPITAL: "Stein" Files Suit Over Merger with BFC
----------------------------------------------------
SHIVA STEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BBX CAPITAL CORP., JOHN E. ABDO,
NORMAN H. BECKER, STEVEN M. COLDREN, WILLIS N. HOLCOMBE, JARETT S.
LEVAN, ANTHONY P. SEGRETO, CHARLIE C. WINNINGHAM II, BFC FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, and BBX MERGER SUBSIDIARY LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. CACE-16-014713 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendants' failure to take action in
obtaining the best value for the public shareholders' interest in
BBX.

On July 28, 2016, BBX announced that it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement with BFC (Merger Agreement) under
which BBX's shareholders will be entitled to receive -- at their
election -- either 5.4 shares of BFCs Class A common stock or
$20.00 in cash for each share of BBX's Class A common stock held
by them (Merger Consideration). Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, BBX shareholders will have the right to elect to
receive all cash, all stock, or a combination of cash and stock in
exchange for their shares.

The Plaintiff says consideration offered in the Proposed
Transaction is inadequate as it fails to sufficiently account for
synergies that may be realized through the Proposed Transaction as
well as the value of BBX's future potential. If the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, BBX stands to grow tremendously, and
is poised to reap significant cost savings in its future business
transactions. With BBX's solid history and recent success, it
comes as no surprise that BFC would be eager to acquire the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily C Komlossy, Esq.
          Ross Appel, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
          4700 Sheridan St., Suite J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 842 2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416 6223
          E-mail:ekomlossy@komlossylaw.com
                 raa@komlossylaw.com

               - and -

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Darya Kapulina-Filina, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212)661 1100


BEST WINGERS: Faces "Godinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Godinez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Best
Wingers LLC, Amgad Elhossieni, Anneka Elhossieni, Tony Elhossieni,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06434 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 711 2nd
Avenue New York, New York, 10016.

Juan Gondinez is a pro se plaintiff.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Super. Ct. 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 HENRY EDWARD SAER, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NEXT OF
KIN AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY ANTHONY
SAER, DECEASED, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants.

The lawsuit seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages,
as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety of
patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use, and
as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless
disregard for patient safety, in violation 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 -

          Michael B. Lynch, Esq.
          The Michael Brady Lynch Firm
          127 West Fairbanks Ave., Suite 528
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone (877) 513 9517
          Facsimile (321) 972 3568
          E-mail: Michael@mblynchfirm.com


BULL ROGERS: "Gowens" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES GOWENS, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC
Section 216(b) v. BULL ROGERS, INC. and HELEN MARIE WALLACE,
individually, Case No. 2:16-cv-00919 (D.N.M., August 12, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime compensation from the Defendants
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bull Rogers, Inc., is a New Mexico corporation with its principal
place of business in New Mexico.  Helen Marie Wallace is Bull
Rogers' president or director.  The Defendants operate or have
operated in interstate commerce, by among other things,
dispatching labor and equipment to states including New Mexico and
Texas.  The Defendants have been involved in oilfield casing
services in oilfields throughout New Mexico and Texas over the
last three years.

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


C LEVEL LLC: Accused by "Owens" Suit of Unpaid OT and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN OWENS, an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. C LEVEL, LLC, a Florida limited liability
corporation, and ANTHONY DENSON, an individual, Case No. 2:16-cv-
OO628-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), is brought under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Constitution and
common law for alleged (1) illegal tip pool, unpaid overtime and
retaliation in violation of the FLSA, (2) unpaid minimum wages and
retaliation in violation of the Florida Constitution, and (3)
unjust enrichment.

C Level, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company located in
Bonita Springs, Florida.  Anthony Denson is the sole manager of C
Level.  The Defendants own and operate the C Level Bistro & Wine
Bar located in Bonita Springs, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq.
          YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW
          9990 Coconut Road
          Bonita Springs, FL 34135
          Telephone: (239) 985-9691
          Facsimile: (239) 288-2534
          E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com


CALIX INC: Aug 26 Hearing to Approve Occam Merger Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Calix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 25, 2016, that the court has issued a scheduling
order setting a hearing for August 26, 2016 to rule on the
Settlement of a class action lawsuit.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam Networks, Inc. entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger
Agreement"). In response to the announcement of the Merger
Agreement on October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint
was filed by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of
Chancery styled as Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No.
5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an
amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt complaint"). The
amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which has since been
merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam board of directors
as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint did not name Calix
as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief
rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011 (the
"Effective Date"). On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on
a motion for sanctions brought by the defendants against certain
of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead
plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management,
L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt
Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and
dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice.
The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i)
barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii)
required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose
their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead
plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5
million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the class
of former Occam stockholders.

The Delaware court also granted the motion of the remaining lead
plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for class
certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as class
representatives. The certified class is a non-opt-out class
consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose shares were
converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger
transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware
action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the
class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continued
to seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

Fact discovery in the case initially closed on April 30, 2013. On
June 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended
Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO
as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best
purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly
material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary
proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.

On April 8, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an Opinion
granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. The ruling granted summary judgment on all
claims as to Occam, the corporate entity, and accordingly, Occam
was dismissed as a defendant in the action. The court also granted
summary judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as
directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper
actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The court left
in place the process-based claims against Occam's former CEO and
CFO, and declined to grant summary judgment on separate claims
that the director and officer defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by issuing a proxy statement for Occam's stockholder vote
that allegedly contained misleading disclosures and had material
omissions.

On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company,
Inc. ("Jefferies") and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This
motion sought additional documents from defendants and from
Jefferies, Occam's former financial advisor, and requested that
the court impose severe sanctions, up to and including a finding
of liability against defendants.

Defendants have rejected the suggestion that any additional
documents should be produced and vigorously opposed the imposition
of any sanctions. On September 3, 2014, the court denied the
motion without prejudice as to defendants, directed counsel for
the defendants to provide an affidavit clarifying the prior
conduct of discovery, and ordered discovery into defendants'
document collection and review methodologies. The court also
ordered Jefferies to produce additional documents.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion requesting leave to amend their
complaint to add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
P.C. ("Wilson Sonsini"), Occam's counsel and former defense
counsel in this lawsuit, as defendants.

On July 16, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend their complaint to add Jefferies as a defendant, but granted
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add
Wilson Sonsini as a defendant. On July 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed
their Third Amended Complaint adding Wilson Sonsini as a defendant
in the lawsuit. Defendants filed their answers to the Third
Amended Complaint on September 8, 2015.

Trial on the matter commenced on April 11, 2016 before the
Delaware Court of Chancery. On April 14, 2016, the parties entered
into a memorandum of understanding of a settlement in principle
("Settlement") to resolve all of the claims pending before the
Delaware Court of Chancery and related claims. The Settlement
terms provide that neither the Company nor any of its officers or
directors would be required to make any contribution to the
settlement consideration of $35 million to be paid for the benefit
of the plaintiff class. The Company did not previously accrue any
estimated loss in connection with this action and, as a result of
the Settlement, will not recognize any loss related to this
action. Further, the Company has incurred certain defense costs
for which its insurance carriers denied coverage or that are
otherwise in excess of coverage. These costs were recorded as
operating expense in the Company's Consolidated Statement of
Comprehensive Income (Loss) in the periods incurred. In connection
with the Settlement (and separate from the settlement
consideration), the Company would also receive a cash payment of
approximately $4.5 million in partial recovery of such costs.

On May 31, 2016, the parties signed the global settlement
agreement reflecting the terms of the Settlement and filed the
agreement with the court for approval. The court has issued a
scheduling order setting a hearing for August 26, 2016 to rule on
the Settlement and ordering, among other things, that lead
plaintiffs notify the plaintiff class of the Settlement. The
Settlement remains subject to the approval of the Delaware Court
of Chancery. As of June 25, 2016, the Company had not recorded any
amounts related to this Settlement. Upon approval of the
settlement, the Company expects to recognize the $4.5 million in
partial recovery of out-of-pocket costs.

The Company and the defendants have denied and continue to deny
each and all of the claims alleged in the litigation, and the
Settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of fault,
wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant.

Since the closing of the merger, the Company has advanced defense
costs related to this lawsuit. The Company has obligations, under
certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each of the
former Occam directors and officers named as defendants in this
action against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related
to claims against such directors and officers to the fullest
extent permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and
certificate of incorporation. In addition, under the engagement
letter between Occam and Jefferies, the Company has obligations,
under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify
Jefferies against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses
related to Jefferies' engagement by Occam. The Company has paid
fees and expenses incurred by Jefferies in connection with this
matter pursuant to Jefferies indemnity demand under this
agreement.

The Company has incurred significant legal fees and costs
defending this lawsuit and during the fiscal quarter ended March
26, 2016, the Company's defense costs exhausted its available
Directors & Officers liability insurance coverage.  The legal
proceedings have been protracted as plaintiffs continue to seek
additional discovery following the court's order re-opening
discovery and with the addition of Wilson Sonsini as a defendant
in the action in July 2015.

Until the Settlement was reached, the Company also continued to
incur significant litigation expenses that were not covered by
insurance, including the Company's costs associated with the
Jefferies indemnification obligations. For the three and six
months ended June 25, 2016, the Company recorded litigation
defense costs and expenses in excess of its insurance coverage of
$2.9 million and $6.5 million, respectively, as operating expense
in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Comprehensive Loss.


CAREER EDUCATION: Still Defends "Surrett" Student Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary
Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation.

The Company said, "On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in
Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in
and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.
("WCI") and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the
complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged
two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful
Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two
claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs
allege WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating
generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment
prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an
education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect
to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after
graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of
plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on
September 12, 2008."

"On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting
class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

"Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

"On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,
2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion
to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the
case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and
on January 21, 2016, the appellate court reversed the trial court
and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual class members
referenced above should be compelled to arbitration. The case has
been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent
difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the
number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages,
if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized
any liability associated with this action."


CAREER EDUCATION: Appeal in "Wilson" Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal in the
employment litigation, Wilson, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, remains pending.

The Company said, "On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former
admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and
unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our
Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan.
In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to
represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions
representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan.

"On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its
entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14,
2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the
final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on
October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012.
On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed
and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of
contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for
rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of
contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois
Supreme Court, but the petition was denied.

"The case was remanded to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The parties completed fact discovery as to the issue of
liability. On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary
judgment which the Court granted on December 18, 2015. Plaintiff
filed his notice of appeal on January 16, 2016."

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

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise on
appeal, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this
point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this
action. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability
associated with this action," the Company said.


CHEVRON STATIONS: "Williams" Seeks Damages Under Cal. Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAKEISHA WILLIAMS, individually on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON STATIONS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC 630392 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016),
seeks monetary damages, including full restitution from Defendants
as a result of Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay all wages at the legal
overtime rate due for overtime wages worked; failed to provide
uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods; and failed to timely furnish
accurate itemized wage statements.

The Defendants sell gasoline and convenience products at their
retail stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
          9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone (323) 857 5900
          Facsimile (310) 275 6301


CLEAN HARBORS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
PASCUAL GONZALEZ on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
CLEAN HARBORS, INC.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
BC630385 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 12 2016), seeks to recover
nominal, actual, and compensatory damages, pursuant to the Labor
Code.

The Defendants have had a continuous and widespread policy of
"clocking-out" Plaintiff and those similarly situated for 30-
minute meal periods, even though Plaintiff and those similarly
situated were suffered and/or permitted to work during these
deduction periods, thereby deducting 30 minutes of paid time,
including straight time and overtime.

The Defendants own and operate trucks, industrial trucks,
industrial vehicles, and/or industrial work sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissal of Securities Case Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
from the dismissal of the shareholder securities class action.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel.

In lieu of ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss, the court
permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended consolidated
class action complaint, which was filed on October 5, 2015. The
Company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and oral
argument was held on April 11, 2016.

The Company's motion to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and
on June 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company believes this consolidated
matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.


COPLEY PLAZA: "Saban" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Statute
-----------------------------------------------------------
LOU SABAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. COPLEY PLAZA HOTEL OPERATING COMPANY LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 16-2497 (Ma. Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks
to recover damages including treble damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to Massachusetts Wage Statute.

The Copley Plaza allegedly engaged in a systematic scheme to alter
time cards, with the result that hourly workers were not paid for
all of the time they worked. The scheme was directed and enforced
by senior hotel management and was motivated by a desire to
improve the hotel's financial performance, at the expense of
hourly workers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK. P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3260
          Facsimile: (617) 488 2261
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Security Seeks Reductions of Property Values
------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY PORTFOLIO IV LP, ET AL, the Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. DC-16-09674 (Dal.
Cty. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $200,000 to
$1,000,000.

The Plaintiffs allege that the 2016 values of the Property
constitute unequal appraisals of their Property in that the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the
median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative
sample of other properties or a sample of other properties
consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly
situated to or of the same general kind or character as the
Property; and/or that the values exceed the median appraised value
of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately
adjusted. The Plaintiffs are entitled to reductions of the values
of the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lorri Michel, Esq.
          Raymond Gray, Esq.
          Shane Rogers, Esq.
          Natalie A. Maloney, Esq.
          MICHEL GRAY, LLP
          812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 477 0200
          Facsimile: (512) 477 6636
          E-mail: lorri@michelgray.com
                  raymond@michelgray.com
                  shane@michelgray.com
                  natalie@michelgray.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: ARC Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
-------------------------------------------------------
ARC TCMESTX001 LLC (Towne Center Plaza), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. DC-16-09790
(Dal. Cty. Ct, Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000
or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of
the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's property).

In 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 $15,275,600, an amount in
excess of the appraised value required by law.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

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: ddonovaa@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: RPI Cedarhill Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RPI CEDARHILL LTD. (The Market at Cedar Hill Shopping Center), the
Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant,
Case No. DC-16-09798 (Dal. Cty. Ct, Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary
relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary
relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to
Plaintiff's property).

In 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 $12,525,690, an amount in
excess of the appraised value required by law.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

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: ddonovaa@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: El Tahhan Sues Over Excessive Property Value
------------------------------------------------------------
MAAYEH EL TAHHAN, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-09679 (Dal. Cir. Ct., Aug.
10, 2016), seeks remedies from Defendants due to its excessive
assigned value to the Plaintiff's property for tax year (2015).

The Defendant allegedly failed to apply generally accepted
appraisal methods and techniques as required by Property Tax Code;
appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of
the Property exceeds by at least en percent the median level of
appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other
properties in the appraisal district; appraised the Property
unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by
at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of
properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable
number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same
violation of the Texas Constitution; and appraised the Property
unequally because the appraised value of the Property exceeds the
median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable
properties appropriately adjusted

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Abtahi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT ABTAHI
          1126 N Zang Blvd
          Dallas, TX 75203
          Telephone: (214) 306 9696
          Facsimile: (214) 432 1588
          E-mail: Robert@rbalawyer.com


DINER 84: Faces "Sibinski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Sibinski, and others similarly situated v. Diner 84 Inc. and
Anestis Nikiforidis, Case No. 0:16-cv-61946-UU (S.D. Fla., August
12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Broward County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Scally" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ditech Financial, LLC. The case
is captioned Kendall Scally, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ditech Financial,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2016). The
assigned Judge is William Q. Hayes.

Ditech Financial, a mortgage company, lends and services
residential mortgages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
          SEMNAR & HARTMAN LLP
          400 South Melrose, Suite 209
          Vista, CA 92081
          Telephone: (951) 234 0881
          Facsimile: (888) 819 8230
          E-mail: jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: 9th Cir. Appeal in Investors' Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff's
appeal in a shareholder class action lawsuit remains pending
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In August 2014, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against
the Company and several of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that, between
October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and
omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo. The
consolidated lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of
shareholders as well as other equitable and unspecified monetary
relief.

On April 1, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action lawsuit and the
case was dismissed with prejudice on May 19, 2015.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June 18, 2015, and the
matter currently is pending before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against this consolidated lawsuit. At this time the Company
is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome of this
consolidated lawsuit, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Antitrust Class Action Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend an antitrust class action lawsuit in
California.

The Company said, "In September and October 2014, three putative
class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws were filed against the Company and various other
companies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. These lawsuits have been consolidated and generally
assert that the defendants agreed to restrict competition through
non-solicitation agreements and agreements to fix wage and salary
ranges. The lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of all
animation and visual effect workers employed by the defendants
during various periods between 2004 and 2010."

"On May 25, 2016, the Court granted-in-part plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits. At this time the Company is unable to
reasonably predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, nor can
it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss."


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: AACERS Sues Over Comcast Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Ann Arbor City
Employees Retirement System, a purported stockholder of the
Company ("AACERS"), filed on June 27, 2016, a putative class
action complaint against Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer and controlling stockholder and a director in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On April 28, 2016, the Company, Comcast Corporation ("Comcast")
and Comcast Paris Newco, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Comcast ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into DreamWorks Animation, with DreamWorks
Animation continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Comcast (the "Merger").

The complaint alleges that (1) Mr. Katzenberg, as the Company's
controlling stockholder, breached his fiduciary duties to the
Company's other stockholders by, among other things, entering into
a consulting agreement with Comcast pursuant to which he will
receive certain profits interests in two of the Company's
majority-owned subsidiaries, (2) Mr. Katzenberg violated the
Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and thus breached
a contract with the Company and the Company's other stockholders
by entering into the consulting agreement, and (3) Mr. Katzenberg
violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
entering into the consulting agreement.

AACERS has asked the Court to, among other things, (i) order Mr.
Katzenberg to share the profit interests resulting from the
consulting agreement, pro rata, with the Company's other
stockholders, and (ii) award AACERS's attorney's fees and other
costs associated with the action.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Bumba Sues Over Comcast Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Kenneth Bumba, a
purported stockholder of the Company, filed on July 29, 2016, a
putative class action complaint against the Company, Jeffrey
Katzenberg, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and controlling
stockholder and a director, each of the Company's other directors
and Comcast in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On April 28, 2016, the Company, Comcast Corporation ("Comcast")
and Comcast Paris Newco, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Comcast ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into DreamWorks Animation, with DreamWorks
Animation continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Comcast (the "Merger").

The complaint alleges that (1) Mr. Katzenberg breached his
fiduciary duty to the Company's stockholders by, among other
things, entering into the consulting agreement with Comcast
pursuant to which he will receive the profits interests and that
the other directors violated their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by, among other things, allowing Mr.
Katzenberg to enter into that agreement, (2) the directors
violated the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and
thus breached a contract with the Company and the Company's
stockholders by allowing Mr. Katzenberg to enter into the
consulting agreement, and (3) the directors violated an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing by allowing Mr. Katzenberg
to enter into the consulting agreement. The complaint also alleges
that the information statement distributed to stockholders was
materially deficient, that the Company violated its obligation
under Delaware law to provide prompt written notice to other
stockholders regarding the transaction and that Comcast aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors. The
plaintiff in the action has asked for relief similar to that
requested in the AACERS lawsuit.


DRIFTWOOD DAIRY: "Collins" Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL COLLINS and FRANK PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DRIFTWOOD DAIRY, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC630219
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks monetary damages and
restitution under California Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay
wages, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with the
California Labor Code. It also failed to pay their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California for all hours
worked, missed (short, late, interrupted, and/or missed
altogether) meal periods and rest breaks in violation
of California law; deprived Plaintiffs and the other class members
of meal and/or rest periods or required Plaintiffs and the other
class members to work during meal and/or rest periods without
compensation; failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs and the
other class members for all hours worked; and failed to pay all
wages due to Plaintiffs and the other class members within the
required time upon their discharge or resignation.

Driftwood Dairy engages in the production and distribution of
dairy and food service products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


EAST RIDGE: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Silva and all others similarly situated v. East Ridge
Retirement Village, Inc., and Jeffrey Merritt, Case No. 1:16-cv-
23481-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a retirement home located at 19301 SW 87th
Ave, Cutler Bay, FL 33157.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, PA
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


EEG INC: Sued for Over-charging of Salon Education Course
---------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL JONES, KEISHA CAPPEL, ANNE OLIVER and WARREN YOUNG, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. EEG, INC., FRANK SCHOENEMAN, and MICHAEL D. BOUMAN,
all conducting business as the "Empire Education Group", the
Defendant, Case No. 160800812 (Phil. Cty. Ct., August 7, 2016),
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, enjoining Defendants'
policy of over-charging, directing Defendants to send a court-
approved form of notice to all class members advising them of the
alleged overcharges, and establishing a court-administered program
to provide refunds to all class members, with the Defendants being
ordered to pay the costs associated with such program.

EEG provides education services. The Company offers courses in
cosmetology, esthetics, and makeup artistry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215 564 1721


EIGHT O'CLOCK: Faces "Sorgenti" Suit in N.Y. Over Coffee Bags
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM SORGENTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. EIGHT O'CLOCK COFFEE COMPANY, Case No: 7:16-cv-06295-
KMK (S.D.N.Y., August 9, 2016), was filed on behalf of purchasers
of specialty coffee bags of Eight O'Clock Coffee manufactured
and/or marketed by Eight O'Clock Coffee Company.

Eight O'Clock Coffee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated
Coffee Company, a U.S. subsidiary of India-based Tata Coffee
Limited, which is owned by Tata Global Beverages, one of the
world's leading tea, coffee, and natural water companies. Tata
Global Beverages itself is part of the Tata Group, a multinational
conglomerate holding company based in Mumbai, India.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
     Robert J. Berg, Esq.
     DENLEA & CARTON LLP
     2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
     White Plains, NY 10604
     Phone: (914) 331-0100
     E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com
             rberg@denleacarton.com


EMPIRE CITY: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ ALJADAS and CLARE JONES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. EMPIRE CITY LABORATORIES, INC.,
STEVE NISAN, and MICHAEL NISANOV, Case No: 1:16-cv-04428
(E.D.N.Y., August 9, 2016), was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover unpaid
overtime compensation.

Defendants are in the business of providing laboratory diagnostic
testing services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
     Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080
     Fax: (212) 943-9082


ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Investors Sue in Georgia Over IPO
------------------------------------------------------
EndoChoice Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative stockholder
class action lawsuit was filed on July 18, 2016, in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia against the Company, certain of
the Company's current officers, certain current and former members
of the Company's board of directors, and the underwriters of our
initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaint alleges that
the registration statement for our IPO contained false and
misleading statements relating to sales of Fuse(R) and asserts
claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a
putative class consisting of purchasers of EndoChoice common stock
pursuant or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission and other relief.

"We believe the claims and allegations are without merit and
intend to defend the litigation vigorously," the Company said.

"Based on the limited nature of the plaintiff's allegations, the
early stage of the proceedings, the lack of discovery and because
significant legal issues have yet to be raised and decided by the
court, we have determined that the amount of any possible loss or
range of possible loss in connection with the above matter is not
reasonably estimable. While we believe the plaintiff's claims and
allegations are without merit, due to the uncertainties inherent
in litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome and
resolution of this suit. An adverse outcome could materially and
adversely affect the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows in any particular reporting period."

EndoChoice Holdings is a medical device company focused
exclusively on designing and commercializing a platform of
innovative products and services for gastrointestinal, or GI,
caregivers.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Court Asked to Decertify & Dismiss OT Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that counsel
to the plaintiff in the "Banta" class action has filed a
stipulation requesting that the Court decertify and dismiss the
overtime claims.

Four different putative class action lawsuits were filed against
AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws. On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni
commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed
suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles; and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian cases have subsequently
been consolidated into a single action.

In these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR
entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in
compliance with California law, and failed to provide required
meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed
breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes on these
claims and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and
attorneys' fees under California law.

While certification of the rest period claims in the consolidated
Karapetian/ Aguilar case was denied, the Court certified classes
on claims alleging that AMR has not provided meal periods in
compliance with the law as to dispatchers and call takers, that
AMR has an unlawful time rounding policy, and that AMR has an
unlawful practice of setting rates for those employees.

On October 13, 2015, the Court decertified all classes in the
Karapetian/ Aguilar case, a decision that is being appealed. In
the Banta case, the Court denied certification of the meal and
rest period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that
plaintiff's counsel appealed. The appeal was denied because of the
pendency of other class and representative claims in the case. The
Court indicated that it would certify a class on overtime claims;
however, in July 2016, Banta's counsel filed a stipulation
requesting that the Court decertify and dismiss the overtime
claims.

In the Bartoni case, the Court denied certification on the meal
and rest period claims of all unionized employees in Northern
California, a decision that is being appealed; while the Court
certified a class on the overtime claims, plaintiffs' counsel
stipulated to decertify and dismiss those claims as AMR's policy
complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision.

The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of
potential damages, if any.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over AmSurg Corp. Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a
purported stockholder of the Company has filed a putative
stockholder class action lawsuit against the members of the
Company's Board and Barclays PLC in the Court of Chancery of the
state of Delaware related to the proposed Merger with AmSurg Corp.

On June 15, 2016, the Company, AmSurg Corp., a Tennessee
corporation ("AmSurg"), and New Amethyst Corp., a newly formed
Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of
AmSurg ("New Amethyst"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company and
AmSurg will combine in an all-stock merger of equals. Upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, AmSurg will merge with and into New Amethyst ("Merger
1"), with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation,
immediately after which the Company will merge with and into New
Amethyst ("Merger 2" and together with Merger 1, the "Mergers"),
with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation. Upon
the closing of the Mergers, the name of the combined company will
be changed to "Envision Healthcare Corporation".

Following the announcement of the proposed Mergers, a purported
stockholder of the Company filed a putative stockholder class
action lawsuit against the members of the Company's Board and
Barclays PLC in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware on
July 15, 2016. The lawsuit alleges that the members of the
Company's Board violated their fiduciary duties in connection with
the proposed Mergers and that Barclays PLC aided and abetted those
breaches. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
Mergers from proceeding or, alternatively, damages in the event
the Mergers are consummated. The Company believes this lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


FITZGERALD EQUITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lugo" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Lugo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Fitzgerald Equity Partners, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:16-cv-04977-WJM-MF (D.N.J., August 12, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Fitzgerald Equity Partners, LLC operates a debt collection agency
located in Boynton Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Hendley" Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS B. HENDLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., GEORGE E. DEESE, ALLEN
L. SHIVER, R. STEVE KINSEY, and KARYL H. LAUDER, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06417 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), is brought on behalf of persons
and entities that acquired Flower Foods securities between
February 7, 2013, and August 10, 2016, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Flower Foods is a Georgia corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Thomasville, Georgia.  Flower Foods is a food
company that operates two business segments: a direct-store-
delivery segment and a warehouse delivery segment.  The DSD
Segment operates 39 bakeries that market a wide variety of fresh
bakery foods, including fresh breads, buns, rolls, tortillas, and
snack cakes.  The Warehouse Segment operates 10 bakeries that
produce snack cakes, breads and rolls for national retail,
foodservice, vending, and co-pack customers, which are delivered
through customers' warehouse channels and one bakery mix plant.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Throughout the Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the Plaintiff explains,
the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that the Company was improperly classifying employees as
independent contractors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  RProngay@glancylaw.com
                  csadler@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com


FORTRESS SECURITY: "Real" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAMIRO REAL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. FORTRESS SECURITY CORPORATION, a California
corporation; and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC630088 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of California Labor Code
and Industrial Welfare Commission.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay compensation and overtime
compensation in a timely fashion.

Fortress Security, a private security services company, provides a
range of specialized monitoring and professional protection
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC
          David Yeremian, Esq.
          535 N, Brand Blvd Suite 705
          Glendale, California 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com


G1 TOWING: "Castaneda" Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO CASTANEDA, in his individual and representative capacity,
the Plaintiff, v. G1 TOWING, INC., a California Corporation; G1
TOWING SACRAMENTO, INC., a California Corporation; RAUL GARCIA and
DOES 1-10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC630124 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks to recover damages,
uninterrupted off-duty meal and rest periods, minimum and overtime
wages, accurate wage statements, timely payment of all wages upon
termination, accurate payroll records of daily hours worked,
minimum wages, and payment of wages for all hours worked, among
other things, under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked shifts in excess of eight hours. The
Plaintiff alleges that he and other Aggrieved Employees were not
paid for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked.

The Defendants operate a tow truck business throughout California
including Los Angeles County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          433 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496 4818
          Facsimile: (310) 510 6429
          E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com


GANDARA MENTAL: "Romero" Seeks Overtime Wages Under Hour Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS JEREMY ROMERO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GANDARA MENTAL HEALTH
CENTER, INC., KJMBERLY KLIMCZUK, and STERLING HALL, the
Defendants, Case No.182316 (Ma. Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks
relief for the Defendants' violations of state wage and hour laws.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay its Therapeutic Staff wages
for all hours worked and failed to pay them overtime wages in
violation of state wage and hour law.

The Defendants operate an in-home mental health care agency that
employs "therapeutic mentors" and "therapeutic training and
support" employees who provide assistance to the Defendants'
medical clinicians.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Charlotte Drew, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF
          NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338 9400


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Walsh Estate Suit Pending in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the case, Estate of Helen F. Walsh, Deceased v.
Genworth Financial, Inc., et al.

The Company said, "In a complaint filed in July 2016, Genworth
Financial, Inc., Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company,
Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York and Genworth Life
Insurance Company were named in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Estate of Helen F. Walsh, Deceased v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint
alleges breach of contract involving optional inflation increase
benefit riders on certain long-term care insurance policies and
seeks unspecified actual damages, declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. We intend
to vigorously defend this action."


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: $219MM Securities Case Settlement Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has
approved the $219 million settlement in the securities class
action lawsuit.

In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief
executive officer and its then current chief financial officer
were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel
Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff
alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in
2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance
reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the
same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks
the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra
lawsuit.

Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the
City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the City of Pontiac
lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta
and Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association as lead
plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re
Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

The Company said, "On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On May 1, 2015, the court
denied the motion to dismiss. We engaged in mediation in the
fourth quarter of 2015, continuing into the first quarter of 2016,
and previously accrued $25 million in connection with this matter,
during the fourth quarter of 2015, which was the amount of our
self-insured retention on our executive and organizational
liability insurance program."

"On March 11, 2016, in connection with the mediation, we reached
an agreement in principle to settle the action. On April 1, 2016,
the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of
settlement. The settlement provides for a full release of all
defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit.
We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, but we
are settling the lawsuit to avoid the burden, risk and expense of
further litigation. The agreement provides for a settlement
payment to the class of $219 million, inclusive of all plaintiffs'
attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs, of which $150
million will be paid by our insurance carriers, and $69 million
pre-tax will be paid by Genworth. Our payment was made into an
escrow account during the first quarter of 2016. We also incurred
additional legal fees and expenses of approximately $10 million
pre-tax, for a total additional pre-tax incurred amount of $79
million in the first quarter of 2016.

"On April 13, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, provisional certification
of the class for settlement purposes only, and issuance of notice
to settlement class members. The Court held a hearing on July 20,
2016 and approved the settlement. As a result of the approved
settlement, all coverage available to Genworth under our 2014
executive and organizational liability insurance program was
exhausted. Therefore, Genworth does not have coverage under the
program to pay any future settlements or judgments in relation to
litigation brought during the 2014 policy year, including the City
of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial,
Inc., et al., case."


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: City of Hialeah Employees' Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the action by City of Hialeah Employees'
Retirement System.

The Company said, "In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its
former chief executive officer and its then current chief
financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities
law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning
Genworth's Australian mortgage insurance business, including our
plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such
equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. The
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
appointed City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New
Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and
designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial,
Inc. Securities Litigation."

"On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint. On March 25, 2015, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied
the motion but entered an order dismissing the amended complaint
with leave to replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied the
motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, we filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's June 16, 2015 order denying our
motion to dismiss which the court denied on March 3, 2016. On
January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification which we opposed. On March 7, 2016, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.

"We have exhausted all coverage under our 2014 executive and
organizational liability insurance program applicable to this
case; therefore, there is no insurance coverage for Genworth with
respect to any settlement or judgment amount related to this
litigation."


GNC HOLDINGS: 28 DMAA & Aegeline Product Liability Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, 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 as of June 30, 2016,
the Company was named in 28 personal injury lawsuits involving
products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline.

Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by
third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as
1.3-dimethylpentylamine/dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine, or
"DMAA," which were recalled from the Company's stores in November
2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees. As of
June 30, 2016, the Company was named in 28 personal injury
lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline.
As a general matter, the proceedings associated with these
personal injury cases, which generally seek indeterminate money
damages, are in the early stages, and any losses that may arise
from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at
this time.

The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by its
third-party vendors with regard to these matters, although the
Company's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such
claims against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the
vendors and/or their insurance coverage and the absence of any
significant defenses available to its insurer.


GNC HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Tuesday in "Brewer" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, 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 hearing regarding
final Court approval of the settlement in the class action by
Charles Brewer is scheduled for August 23, 2016.

In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal
court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims. In October
2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging,
among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations on
behalf of sales associates and store managers.

In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's
claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and
granted the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA
class.

In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment as to the Company's alleged liability for non-compliant
wage statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in
September 2015.

On February 5, 2016, the Company and attorneys representing the
putative class agreed to class-wide settlements of the Brewer case
and an additional, immaterial case raising similar claims,
pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay up to $9.5 million in
the aggregate, including attorneys' fees and costs.

Following a hearing on April 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement, which remains subject to final
Court approval. A hearing regarding final Court approval is
currently scheduled for August 23, 2016.

As a result of this settlement, the Company recorded a charge of
$6.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, in addition to $3.2
million previously accrued in the first quarter of 2015.


GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defending "Naranjo" Meal & Rest Break Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, 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 continues
to defend a case by Elizabeth Naranjo.

On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The
complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other
matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations. As of June 30,
2016, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying
financial statements.

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


GROUPON INC: Settlement in Securities Litigation Granted Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, 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 Court has entered
an order providing final approval of the settlement and final
judgment, dismissing with prejudice, the case, In re Groupon, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

The Company was a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to which, on
October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed against the Company, certain of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters that participated in the initial
public offering of the Company's Class A common stock.  The case
was pending before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities
Litigation. In the first quarter of 2016, the parties entered into
a term sheet to settle the litigation that provides for a
settlement payment to the class of $45.0 million in cash,
including plaintiff's attorneys' fees, in exchange for a full and
final release and also includes a denial of liability or any
wrongdoing by the Company and the other defendants.

On April 7, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. On April 21, 2016, a $45.0 million
settlement payment was made into an escrow account.

On July 13, 2016, the Court entered an order providing final
approval of the settlement and final judgment, dismissing the
action with prejudice.

The Company was fully reserved for the settlement amount as of
June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015.


GROUPON INC: Appeal in Marketing & Sales Practices Case Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, 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 appeal challenging
the approval of the settlement in the case, In re Groupon
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, was dismissed on June
23, 2016, and the settlement became final and non-appealable as of
that date.

In 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class
actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California. The consolidated actions are
referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. In July 2015, the parties reached an agreement in
principle regarding a settlement involving a combination of cash
and Groupon credits, worth a total of $8.5 million.

On March 23, 2016, the district court granted final approval of
the settlement over various objections posed by two individuals
and entered judgment pursuant to the settlement.

In April 2016, the two individuals who had objected filed notices
of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. One appeal
challenged the district court's approval of the class action
settlement; the other appeal challenged the district court's
denial of the objector's request for an award of attorney's fees.

The appeal challenging the approval of the settlement was
dismissed on June 23, 2016, and the settlement became final and
non-appealable as of that date. The case was dismissed with
prejudice and settlement claims are being validated and processed.

The Company was fully reserved for the settlement amount as of
June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015.


HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Motion to Amend "Halloran" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that no opposition has been
filed to the motion to amend the first amended complaint, which
remains pending.

On February 19, 2016, the Company was served with a notice of a
summons and complaint filed on January 29, 2016 against ISO in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut titled
Halloran et al. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. et al.
As alleged in the First Amended Complaint, the putative class
action is brought by four policyholders on behalf of a class of
similarly situated policyholders in eastern Connecticut who allege
that their homeowner's insurance carriers have denied or will deny
their claims for damage to their homes caused by defective
concrete.

The lawsuit alleges a breach of contract claim against certain
insurers and seeks declaratory relief as to more than 100 other
insurers. It also alleges that  ISO as the drafter of the
standardized policy language at issue violated the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices ("CUTPA") and the Connecticut Unfair
Insurance Practices Act ("CUIPA"). The plaintiffs ask that the
Court certify a class of persons similarly situated and seek
relief in the form of the cost for the replacement of their
concrete foundations, and a declaratory judgment that all of the
defendant insurance carriers are obligated to provide coverage for
claims resulting from the defective concrete as well as,
attorneys' fees, costs and interest.

On March 17, 2016 plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint
asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act, adding a number of insurer defendants and amending their
damages claim to include punitive damages. After defendants
indicated that they would be filing motions to dismiss the first
amended complaint at a Rule 16 Conference on April 12, 2016, the
Court gave plaintiffs until May 6, 2016 to move for leave to file
a second amended complaint.

On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Motion to amend the first
amended complaint with a proposed second amended complaint, which
did not name ISO or the Company as a defendant. No opposition was
filed to the motion to amend, which remains pending.


HARRIS COUNTY: Eagle Creek Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
--------------------------------------------------------------
EAGLE CREEK ACQUISITION LLC (FALLS AT EAGLE CREEK APARTMENTS), the
Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant,
Case No. 2016-53520 (Harris Cty. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks
monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief.

According to the complaint, the value placed on the Plaintiff's
property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The
appraised value is unfair and discriminatory.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: FCL Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
------------------------------------------------------
FCL ACQUISITION LLC (FALLS AT COPPPER LAKE APARTMENTS), the
Plaintiff, v. Harris County Appraisal District, the Defendant,
Case No. 2016-53522 (Tex. Harris Cty. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks
monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief.

According to the complaint, the value placed on the Plaintiff's
property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The
appraised value is unfair and discriminatory.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: Jones Road Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONES ROAD ACQUISTION LLC (RESERVE AT JONES ROAD), the Plaintiff,
v. Harris County Appraisal District, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-
53461 (Tex. Harris Cty. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief
of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief.

According to the complaint, the value placed on the Plaintiff's
property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The
appraised value is unfair and discriminatory.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: Yorktown Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
-----------------------------------------------------------
YORKTOWN ACQUISTION LLC (YORKTOWN CROSSING APRATMENTS), the
Plaintiff, v. Harris County Appraisal District, the Defendant,
Case No. 2016-53498 (Harris Cty. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks
monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief.

According to the complaint, the value placed on the Plaintiff's
property allegedly represents a value in excess of fair market
value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOMZ MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sauer" Suit in Western Dist. of Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Homz Management Corp. The case is
captioned John Sauer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Homz Management Corp., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00557 (W.D. Wis., Aug. 9, 2016).

HOMZ Management offers residences in locations across Wisconsin
and Iowa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Jesse R. Dill, Esq.
          Scott Stanton Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          200 S. Executive Drive, Suite 205
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780 1953
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  jdill@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


HUNTSMAN CORP: Fails to Shake Off Consumer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016,
that a court has substantially denied a motion to dismiss except
as to consumer protection claims in one state.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in a class action
civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of
products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers")
making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct
Purchasers. On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs
to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings
containing titanium dioxide. On August 11, 2015, the court granted
our motion to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with
leave to amend the complaint. A Third Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed on September 29, 2015 further limiting the
class to consumers of architectural paints. Plaintiffs have raised
state antitrust claims under the laws of 15 states, consumer
protection claims under the laws of 9 states, and unjust
enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states. On November 4,
2015, we and our co-defendants filed another motion to dismiss."

"On June 13, 2016, the court substantially denied the motion to
dismiss except as to consumer protection claims in one state. The
Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief,
treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs
of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal
conduct by us or any of our employees. Nevertheless, we have
incurred costs relating to this claim and could incur additional
costs in amounts which in the aggregate could be material to us.
Because of the overall complexity of this case, we are unable to
reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have
made no accrual with respect to this claim."


IDEAL TELECOM: Sued in Florida Cir. Ct. Over Junk Faxing
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence jay Davis, individually and on Behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ideal Telecom Solutions,
Inc.; ITS Telecommunication Systems Inc.; ITS, Inc.; Ideal Time
Solutions Inc., an inactive Florida Corporation by its President,
Christopher Baker; and Shazam Network Inc., a foreign corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. CACE-16-014695 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Aug. 10,
2016), seeks to recover damages and to put a stop to junk faxing
by the Defendants.

The Defendants allegedly blasted thousands of junk faxes statewide
in direct violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act (JFPA) and the
regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission.
The Defedants' violations include, without limitation, the
facsimile transmission of unsolicited advertisement on October 10,
2012 and February 6, 2013 sent to Plaintiff's facsimile telephone
number.

Telecom Solutions serves many industries. It offers outsourced
marketing that can be quickly customized to solve unique
advertising objectives.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank F. Owen, Esq.
          FRANK F. OWEN &
          ASSOCIATES PA
          1091 Ibis Avenue,
          Miami Springs FL 33166
          Telephone: (954) 964 8000
          Facsimile: (305) 984 8915
          E-mail: FFO@Castlepalms.com


IESI MD CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Poe" Suit Asserts
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD POE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
IESI MD CORPORATION, a/k/a PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS, Case No.
8:16-cv-02861-TDC (D. Md., August 12, 2016), accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law by
forcing its employees to work a substantial amount of overtime
without properly paying all compensation due.

IESI MD Corporation, also known as Progressive Waste Solutions, is
a waste collection and recycling company with many locations
throughout the United States and Canada.  IESI is a Domestic For
Profit Business Corporation, registered to do business in the
State of Maryland, with a principal place of business in The
Woodlands, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew E. Kiely, Esq.
          MATTHEW E. KIELY, LLC
          201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 625-9330
          Facsimile: (410) 625-9309
          E-mail: kiely@meklawllc.com

               - and -

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


IMS HEALTH: Has Not Yet Responded to Motion for Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------
IMS Health Holdings, 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 defendants have not
yet responded to the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction.

On May 3, 2016, the Company and Quintiles Transnational Holdings
Inc. entered into a definitive merger agreement, pursuant to which
the companies will be combined. The merged company will be renamed
Quintiles IMS Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, the Company's shareholders will receive 0.3840 shares
of Quintiles common stock for each share of IMS common stock. Upon
completion of the merger, the Company's shareholders will own
approximately 51.4 percent of the shares of the combined company
on a fully diluted basis and Quintiles shareholders will own
approximately 48.6 percent of the combined company on a fully
diluted basis. The transaction is subject to customary closing
conditions, including regulatory approvals and approval by both
IMS and Quintiles shareholders, and is expected to close early in
the fourth quarter of 2016.

On May 16, 2016, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit (Chiu
v. Bousbib et al., C.A. No. 12340-CB) was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the members of the IMS
Health board of directors. An amended complaint in the Chiu action
was filed on June 29, 2016.

In general, the complaint alleges that the members of the IMS
Health board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to IMS
Health stockholders by, among other things, approving the proposed
transaction for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unfair
and conflicted process. The amended complaint further alleges that
the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed June 3, 2016 in
connection with the proposed transaction is materially misleading.
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief
prohibiting consummation of the transaction, rescissionary damages
in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, and an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
proposed transaction. The defendants have not yet responded to the
plaintiff's motion.

"We believe plaintiff's allegations are without merit, reject all
claims raised by plaintiff and intend to vigorously defend this
matter," the Company said.


INTEX RECREATION: "Mirescu" Suit Transferred to S.D. of Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Georgeta Mirescu, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and Terence Duffy, the Plaintiffs, v. Intex
Recreation Corp., a California corporation; Intex Marketing Ltd.,
a British Virgin Islands limited company; Intex Corp., a
California corporation; Intex Group, a California corporation;
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01682, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston). The
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-Cv-00210 to
the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. George C Hanks, Jr.

Intex Recreation designs and distributes airbeds, above ground
pools, and spas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M Tamburelli, Esq.
          Charles T Spagnola, Esq.
          Eliot F Krieger, Esq.
          SULLIVAN KRIEGER TRUONG
          SPAGNOLA AND KLAUSNER LLP
          444 West Ocean Boulevard Suite 1700
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 597 7070
          Facsimile: (562) 597 7772

               - and -

          Thomas A Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC
          77 West Washington Street Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440 4180

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tarifa Belle Laddon, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          1990 South Bundy Drive Suite 620
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 500 2090
          Facsimile: (310) 500 2091

               - and -

          Gilbert Lee, Esq.
          Daniel Manning Hayes, Esq.
          MITCHELL SILBERBERG
          AND KNUPP LLP
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312 2000
          Facsimile: (310) 312 3100


JAMES MCFADDEN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Weisberg" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Weisberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. James McFadden and Dan Pinar, Case No. 2:16-
cv-06048 (C.D. Cal., August 12, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice
to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called
party.

The Defendants provide dental restoring and enhancing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Anew
--------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the U.S. dollar LIBOR-
related putative class actions and most U.S. dollar LIBOR-related
individual actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The Court dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust
claims, and permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange
Act and common law to proceed. In May 2016, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of
the antitrust claims and remanded the case to the District Court
to consider, among other things, whether the plaintiffs have
standing to assert antitrust claims. JPMorgan Chase and other
defendants again moved to dismiss the antitrust claims in July
2016.


KARAMPELAS INVESTMENTS: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE HERNANDEZ, and RUBEN GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KARAMPELAS INVESTMENTS, INC.
d/b/a Gyro Palace and JOHN A. KARAMPELAS, Case No. 2:16-cv-01077-
CNC (E.D. Wisc., August 12, 2016), alleges that the Defendants did
not pay their cooks, cashiers and prep cooks, including the
Plaintiffs, overtime premium wages at a rate of one and one-half
times the regular rate as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Karampelas Investments, Inc., doing business as Gyro Palace, is a
Wisconsin Corporation with a principal place of business in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Karampelas operates two Gyro Palace
locations located in Milwaukee and Glendale, Wisconsin.  Niko A.
Karampelas is the owner of Gyro Palace.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com


LA QUINTA: Defending Against "Beisel" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
La Quinta Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit, captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc.
et al., was filed on April 25, 2016, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's March 24,
2015 secondary public offering (the "March Secondary Offering")
and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
February 25, 2015 through September 17, 2015 (the "Class Period").
The complaint names as defendants the Company, certain current and
former Company officers, and certain current and former members of
the Board of Directors, among others.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that, in violation of the federal securities
laws, the registration statement and prospectus filed in
connection with the March Secondary Offering contained materially
false and misleading information and that the Company as well as
certain current and former officers made false and misleading
statements in earnings releases and to analysts during the Class
Period.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.  The Company believes that the putative class action
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.


MARATHON PETROLEUM: MarkWest Merger Litigation Now Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the litigation
relating to the MarkWest Merger is now dismissed.

In July 2015, a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
challenging the MarkWest Merger was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported unitholder of MarkWest. In
August 2015, two similar putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by plaintiffs
who purport to be unitholders of MarkWest. On September 9, 2015,
these lawsuits were consolidated into one action pending in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, now captioned In re
MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation.

On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the individual members of the board of directors of
MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. (the "MarkWest GP Board"), MPLX, MPLX
GP, MPC and Sapphire Holdco LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MPLX, asserting in connection with the MarkWest Merger and related
disclosures that, among other things, (i) the MarkWest GP Board
breached its duties in approving the MarkWest Merger with MPLX and
(ii) MPC, MPLX, MPLX GP, and Sapphire Holdco LLC aided and abetted
such breaches.

On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation and proposed
order to dismiss all claims with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs, but the Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate a
fee application by the plaintiffs' counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On March 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an application for
reimbursement of approximately $2 million of legal fees and
expenses. On May 17, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew the fee
application and the case is now dismissed.


MARKETO INC: Defending "Porwal" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Marketo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit captioned Porwal v. Marketo, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 16CIV00265, was filed on July 5, 2016, in Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Mateo against Marketo,
its directors, Vista, Parent, and Merger Sub.  The lawsuit
alleges, generally, that Marketo's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Marketo stockholders by seeking to sell
Marketo through an allegedly defective process, for an unfair
price, and on unfair terms, and that the other defendants aided
and abetted those purported breaches. The lawsuit also alleges
that defendants have failed to disclose all material facts
concerning the proposed Merger to stockholders. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the
consummation of the proposed Merger, damages, rescission of the
proposed Merger to the extent it is consummated, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On May 27, 2016, Marketo entered into a Merger Agreement with
Milestone Holdco, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(Parent), and Milestone Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), providing for
the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the Merger),
with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by affiliates of
Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership (Vista).

Marketo, Inc. is a provider of a cloud-based Engagement Marketing
Platform that is purpose-built to enable organizations ranging
from small and medium businesses (SMBs) to the world's largest
enterprises to engage in modern relationship marketing.


MARKETO INC: Request for TRO in "Rosati" Denied
-----------------------------------------------
Marketo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has denied
plaintiff's request for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to
enjoin the shareholder vote on the Company's merger deal.

On July 12, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Rosati v. Marketo, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-3907,
was filed in the United States District for the Court Northern
District of California against Marketo and its directors. The
lawsuit alleges, generally, that Marketo and its directors
violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by
the SEC pursuant to Section 14 under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended. The lawsuit also alleges that defendants have
failed to disclose all material facts concerning the proposed
Merger to stockholders. The lawsuit also alleges that Marketo's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Marketo stockholders
by conducting an inadequate sales process and agreeing to a
transaction that provides Marketo's stockholders with inadequate
consideration.

On July 21, 2016, the plaintiff filed a request for a Temporary
Restraining Order seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote. On July
26, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's request. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the
consummation of the proposed Merger, damages, rescission of the
proposed Merger to the extent it is consummated, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On May 27, 2016, Marketo entered into a Merger Agreement with
Milestone Holdco, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(Parent), and Milestone Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), providing for
the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the Merger),
with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by affiliates of
Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership (Vista).

Marketo, Inc. is a provider of a cloud-based Engagement Marketing
Platform that is purpose-built to enable organizations ranging
from small and medium businesses (SMBs) to the world's largest
enterprises to engage in modern relationship marketing.


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces ERISA Suit by 401(k) Planholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID B. TRACEY, DANIEL GUENTHER, MARIA T. NICHOLSON, CORRINNE R.
FOGG, AND VAHIK MINAIYAN, individually and as representatives of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the MIT
Supplemental 401(k) Plan, v. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, THE MIT SUPPLEMENTAL 401(K) PLAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE,
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, ISRAEL RUIZ, MARC BERNSTEIN, GLENN
DAVID ELLISON, S.P. KOTHARI, GUNTHER ROLAND, LORRAINE A. GOFFE-
RUSH, GLEN SHOR, PAMELA WELDON, THOMAS M. WIEAND, AND BARTON
ZWIEBACH, Case No: 1:16-cv-11620-NMG (D. Mass., August 9, 2016),
was filed on behalf of a purported class of participants and
beneficiaries of the MIT Supplemental 401(k) Plan over alleged
breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a private research
university in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen Churchill, Esq.
     FAIR WORK, P.C.
     192 South Street, Ste. 450
     Boston, MA 02111
     Phone: (617) 607-3260
     Fax: (617) 488-2261
     E-Mail: steve@fairworklaw.com

        - and -

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Michael W. Wolf, Esq.
     Troy A. Doles, Esq.
     Heather Lea, Esq.
     Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
     James Redd, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934
     E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
             mwolff@uselaws.com
             tdoles@uselaws.com
             hlea@uselaws.com
             kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
             jredd@uselaws.com


MEDIA MIX: Faces "Affolder" Suit in Central Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Media Mix 365 LLC. The case is
captioned Matthew Affolder, Individually and on behalf all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Long Nicholas and Media Mix
365 LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01470 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9,
2016).

Media Mix is in the communication services industry.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Two Merger Class Actions Filed in S.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Memorial Resource Development Corp. 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 alleged
stockholders of the Company filed in July 2016 two class action
lawsuits against the Company and the members of the Company's
board of directors relating to a merger.

On May 15, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Range Resources Corporation
("Range"), a Delaware corporation, and Medina Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Range
("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth, the Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as
the surviving entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of Range ("the
Merger").

The lawsuits are styled (i) Roger Mariani v. Memorial Resource
Development Corp., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-2042, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division; and (ii) Joel Morris v. Memorial Resource Development
Corp., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-02183, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division. The Morris action also names Range and Merger Sub as
additional defendants."

"Plaintiffs allege that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed
in connection with the Merger omits allegedly material information
concerning, in general and among other things, (i) the valuation
analyses prepared by Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays") and Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley") in connection with their
fairness opinions regarding the Merger, (ii) the financial
projections utilized by Barclays and Morgan Stanley and (iii) the
background of the Merger. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs
allege that (i) the defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii)
members of our board of directors have violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs also allege, in general and among
other things, that the terms of the Merger are (i) unfair to our
stockholders and (ii) the result of an inadequate process. Based
on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin us from proceeding
with or consummating the Merger. To the extent that the Merger is
consummated before injunctive relief is granted, Plaintiffs seek
to have the Merger rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys'
fees. Plaintiffs have not yet served the defendants, and our date
to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the lawsuit
has not yet been set.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuits or any others that
might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense
that will be required to resolve the lawsuits. We intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuits."


MINNESOTA: Faces "Gamble" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Le Roy Gamble, Cyrus Patrick Gladden II, Jerrad William
Wailand, Clarence Anotnia Washington and all others similarly
situated v. Minnesota State-Operated Services, Minnesota State
Industries, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Department of Human
Services, The State of Minnesota, Emily Johnson Piper, Shelby
Richardson and any John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 0:16-cv-
02720-JRT-JSM (D. Minn., August 12, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for Civil Rights Act violation.

The Defendants operate the state government of Minnesota.

David Le Roy Gamble, Cyrus Patrick Gladden II, Jerrad William
Wailand, Clarence Anotnia Washington are pro se plaintiffs.


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Pincon and Chung Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the consolidated Pincon and Chung cases.

On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon
Chung v. Newport Corp., et al, Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to
the Merger Agreement.  The complaint, filed on March 9, 2016,
named as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and certain
members of Newport's former board of directors. The complaint
alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an
inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair
consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices.
The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, monetary
damages, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs,
among other relief. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung
action filed an amended complaint, which adds certain allegations,
including that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Newport on
March 15, 2016 (the "Proxy") omitted material information. The
amended complaint also names as defendants the Company, Newport,
Merger Sub, and then-current members of Newport's board of
directors.

Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint
captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-
16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of the Newport's
stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The
complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub
and the then-current members of Newport's former board of
directors. It alleges that the named directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell
Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices, and by omitting material information from the
Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches
of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, and an award
of attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in
the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the
Court granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016. On April 20, 2016,
plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing on their
anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and notified the
Court that they did not presently intend to file a motion for a
preliminary injunction regarding the Merger Agreement. On April
22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated
motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the complaints
have no merit and the Company, Newport, Merger Sub and the named
directors intend to defend vigorously against these claims.

MKS Instruments is a global provider of instruments, subsystems
and process control solutions that measure, control, power,
monitor and analyze critical parameters of advanced manufacturing
processes to improve process performance and productivity.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Preliminary Settlement Discussions Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that preliminary settlement
discussions are underway in a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with
C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative
shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges
that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red
Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The
plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for
approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was
completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger
rescinded."

"On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on
November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J
Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period
alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling
stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied
with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal
of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court").

"On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the
Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. This case
remains pending. Nabors and the C&J Energy defendants filed a
motion to dismiss and a hearing was held April 26, 2016 and we
await the Court's ruling.  Preliminary settlement discussions are
underway.


NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Rabin" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal from the
dismissal of the case, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al.,
remains pending.

The Company said, "we were named as a defendant in a putative
class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551
(E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court
entered an order granting our motion to dismiss the complaint. The
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on May 18, 2016.  Particularly given that the
complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage of the
proceeding, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district
court concluded) that the claims are without merit, and we intend
to defend the dismissal on appeal vigorously."


NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Providence" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal from the
dismissal of the case, Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et
al., remains pending.

The Company said, "We are named as one of many defendants in City
of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811
(S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district
court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on
September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven
national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a
private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class
of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-
frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, as well as under
Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3,
2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges
essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015.

"The court heard oral argument on the motion on June 18, 2015. On
August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing
the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice,
concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were foreclosed
by absolute immunity and in any event that the plaintiffs failed
to state any claim.

"The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Given the
preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact
that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate
what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However,
we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are
without merit and intend to litigate the appeal vigorously."


NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Lanier" Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal from the
dismissal of the cases, Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al.,
remains pending.

The Company said, "we are named as one of many exchange defendants
in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.),
Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and
Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were
filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three
complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of
a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by
national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges
provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to
others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for
dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed
under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories
under state law based on these alleged breaches."

"On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints. The court heard oral argument on the motion on January
16, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order
dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice,
concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any
event do not state a claim under the contracts.

"The plaintiff has appealed the judgment of dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second
Circuit heard oral argument on March 3, 2016. Given the
preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact
that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate
what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However,
we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are
without merit and intend to litigate the appeal vigorously."


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DR. ALAN SACERDOTE, DR. HERBERT SAMUELS, MARK CRISPIN MILLER,
PATRICK LAMSON-HALL, MARIE E. MONACO, AND DR. SHULAMITH LALA
STRAUSSNER, individually and as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NYU School of
Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional
Research Staff and Administration and the New York University
Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research
Staff and Administration, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No: 1:16-
cv-06284 (S.D.N.Y., August 9, 2016), alleges breach of the
Employee Retirement Income Stability Act on behalf of the New York
University Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty,
Professional Research Staff and Administration and the NYU School
of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty,
Professional Research Staff and Administration.

New York University is a private, nonsectarian American research
university based in New York City.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq,
     Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
     Troy A. Doles, Esq.
     Heather Lea, Esq.
     Stephen M. Hoeplinger, Esq.
     James Redd, IV, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934
     E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com
             jschlichter@uselaws.com
             mwolff@uselaws.com
             tdoles@uselaws.com
             hlea@uselaws.com
             shoeplinger@uselaws.com
             jredd@uselaws.com


NOBILIS HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss "Schott" Suit Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nobilis Health Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to
dismiss the case, Schott v. Nobilis Health Corp. et al., is under
advisement.

The Company said, "After the Company announced it would be
restating its 2014 annual financial statements and 2015 first and
second quarter interim financial statements, one complaint, Schott
v. Nobilis Health Corp. et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the
Company, our former chief executive officer and our current chief
financial officer. The complaint seeks class action status on
behalf of our shareholders and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out
of the restatement and seeks undisclosed damages. The defendants
intend to vigorously defend against these claims and 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."

"In response, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 7,
2016. The Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to plead particularized facts
supporting a strong inference of scienter on the part of the
individual defendants.

"On June 1, 2016 the court heard oral arguments on the Company's
pending motion to dismiss. The motion is under advisement. At this
early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of
loss, if any, arising from this matter."

Nobilis Health Corp. owns and manages health care facilities in
the States of Texas and Arizona, consisting primarily of
ambulatory surgery centers and acute-care surgical hospitals.


NOBILIS HEALTH: "Capelli" Suit Underway in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------
Nobilis Health Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a statement of claim
(complaint), Vince Capelli v Nobilis Health Corp. et. al, was
filed on January 8, 2016 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
under court file number CV-16-544173 naming Nobilis Health Corp.,
certain current and former officers and the Company's former
auditors as defendants.

The Company said, "The statement of claim seeks to advance claims
on behalf of the plaintiff and on behalf of a class comprised of
certain of our shareholders related to, among other things,
alleged certain violations of the Ontario Securities Act and seeks
damages in the amount of C$80 million plus interest. The
defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims. At
this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood
of loss, if any, arising from this matter."

Nobilis Health Corp. owns and manages health care facilities in
the States of Texas and Arizona, consisting primarily of
ambulatory surgery centers and acute-care surgical hospitals.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Palacci" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Palacci, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NorthStar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04518(E.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

NorthStar Location Services, LLC provides full-service receivables
debt collection solution.
Marlene Palacci is a pro se plaintiff.


ONEOK INC: Updates on Gas Index Pricing Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, provided updates on the Gas Index Pricing
Litigation.

The Company said, "In May 2016, the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada ("the Court") entered an order granting
summary judgment in favor of us and our affiliate ONEOK Energy
Services Company, L.P. ("OESC") in Reorganized FLI, Inc.
previously reported in our Annual Report. The Court determined
that the plaintiff's claim is barred by a release obtained in a
prior lawsuit against us and OESC. Upon entry of a final judgment,
Reorganized FLI, Inc. may pursue an appeal of this determination
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."

"In March 2016, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the
claims alleged against us and our affiliates, OESC and Kansas Gas
Marketing Company, in the following putative class action
lawsuits, previously reported in our Annual Report, that claimed
damages resulting from alleged market manipulation or false
reporting of prices to gas index publications by us and others:
Learjet, Arandell, Heartland Regional Medical Center, and NewPage.
The amount we expect to pay to settle these cases is not material
to our results of operations, financial position or cash flows and
is expected to be paid with cash on hand.

"This agreement in principle to settle does not apply to the
Sinclair case, previously reported in our Annual Report. We expect
that future charges, if any, from the ultimate resolution of these
matters will not be material to our results of operations,
financial position or cash flows."


ORBITAL ATK: Violates Securities Laws, "Knurr" Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN KNURR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ORBITAL ATK, INC., DAVID W. THOMPSON, and GARRETT E.
PIERCE, Case No. 1:16-cv-01031-TSE-MSN (E.D. Virg., August 12,
2016), is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Orbital securities between
June 1, 2015, and August 9, 2016, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Orbital develops and produces aerospace, defense, and aviation-
related products for the U.S. Government, allied nations, prime
contractors, and other customers in the United States and
internationally.  The Company was formed through a February 2015
merger between Orbital Sciences Corporation and Alliant
Techsystems Inc.  The Company is incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Dulles, Virginia.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Aniskevich, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue N.W.
          Suite 500, East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                  dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
                  eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jaHeberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  mgorrie@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


PACIFIC COAST: Preliminary Approval of "Welch" Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust 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 are seeking preliminary approval of a settlement.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy
Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and
others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
consolidated action, and are currently seeking preliminary
approval of the settlement by the court. The Trust believes that
it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or expense
it might incur in connection with the consolidated action.


PASTEUR MEDICAL: "Santana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amado Santana, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Pasteur
Medical Group, LLC a/k/a Pasteur Medical Center and Jose
Sotolongo, Case No. 1:16-cv-23475-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 12,
2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide a complete range of medical services
including transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


RELYPSA INC: Faces "Lu" Class Suit Over Proposed Sale to Galenica
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY LU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RELYPSA, INC., DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN, JOHN P. BUTLER,
PAUL J. HASTINGS, KENNETH J. HILLAN, M.B.Ch.B., DAVID W.J. MCGIRR,
JOHN A. ORWIN, THOMAS J. SCHUETZ, M.D., Ph.D., and HELEN TORLEY,
M.B.Ch.B., M.R.C.P., Case No. 3:16-cv-04605-WHO (N.D. Cal., August
12, 2016), is a shareholder class action alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit arises in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Relypsa by Galenica AG, and Vifor Pharma USA Inc.  The Plaintiff
alleges that Relypsa's board of directors forced through a sale of
the Company in order to reap personal benefits the Directors
negotiated with the Buyer to the detriment of Relypsa's public
stockholders.  The Buyer has offered Relypsa investors $32 per
share in cash, or a total of approximately $1.53 billion.  The
Agreement and Plan of Merger, is dated July 20, 2016.

Relypsa is a biopharmaceutical company spearheading the discovery,
development and commercialization of polymer-based medicines to
treat conditions that are often overlooked and under treated.
Relypsa is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Redwood,
California.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

Non-party Galenica AG is a public limited company existing under
the laws of Switzerland.  Non-party Merger Sub is a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Galenica.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
          E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 601-2610
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


REVCLAIMS LLC: "Hargett" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Hargett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Revclaims LLC, St Bernards Hospital
Inc., St Bernards Community Hospital Corporation, Baptist Health,
White River Health System Inc., and John Does 1-100, Case No. CV-
16-00449, was removed from the Craighead County Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
(Jonesboro). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
00200-JM to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. James M.
Moody Jr.

Revclaims LLC helps large hospitals and health systems, community
hospitals, and trauma centers nationwide boost revenue and reduce
accounts receivable days by increasing injury claims recoveries in
record time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon W. Lacy, Esq.
          WILCOX & LACY, PLC
          600 South Main Street
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 931 3101
          Facsimile: (870) 931 3102
          E-mail: blacy@wilcoxlacy.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq.
          324 South Main
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 336 0155
          Facsimile: (870) 934 8887
          E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Puryear, Esq.
          Ryan M. Wilson, Esq.
          Mark Alan Mayfield, Esq.
          WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR
          MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3077
          Jonesboro, AR 72403-3077
          Telephone: (870) 932 0900
          Facsimile: (870) 932 2553
          E-mail: jpuryear@wpmfirm.com
                  rwilson@wpmfirm.com
                  mmayfield@wpmfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Waddell, Esq.
          Sam Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL, COLE & JONES, PLLC
          Post Office Box 1700
          Jonesboro, AR 72403-1700
          Telephone: (870) 931 1700
          E-mail: pwaddell@wcjfirm.com
                  swaddell@wcjfirm.com

               - and -

          James D. Robertson, Esq.
          Robert L. Henry, III, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372 6175
          E-mail: jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com
                  rhenry@barberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Alfred F. Tom Thompson, III, Esq.
          Casey P. Castleberry, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD,
          SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          Post Office Box 2595
          Batesville, AR 72503-2595
          Telephone: (870) 793 3821
          E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
                  caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com


SAIGON CAFE: Faces "Qian" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jia Hu Qian, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated v. Saigon Cafe 89 Inc., Thai Season Corp., Nipa
Thai Restaurant Corp., Spice Chinese Restaurant Inc., Hang Lin, Bi
Yue Zou, and Yong Zhong Wang, Case No. 1:16-cv-06441 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Manhattan located
at 612 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


SAPUTO CHEESE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA GOMEZ, on behalf or herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. SAPUTO CHEESE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC630533 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug 12, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory damages
in the amount of the unpaid minimum wages including liquidated
damages, under Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was allegedly not properly paid all wages.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at least
minimum wages for pre-shift hours she was required to work. Nor
was she paid overtime wages for hours she was consistently
required to work, in excess of her shift and which exceeded eight
hours on a given day.

Saputo is a Montreal-based Canadian dairy company. Founded as a
cheese making company in 1954 by Italian immigrant Giuseppe
Saputo, today Saputo's business includes dairy products, and it is
the tenth largest dairy processor in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Enoch J. Kim, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  enoch@yeremianlaw.com


SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Karbash" Sues Over Sale to Nichi-Iko
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY KARBASH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ROBERT
FLANAGAN, ALLAN OBERMAN, ANTHONY KRIZMAN, MARY TAYLOR BEHRENS,
MICHAEL FEKETE, SHLOMO YANAI, NICHI-IKO PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
and SHEPARD VISION, INC., Case No: 1:16-cv-07973 (N.D. Ill.,
August 9, 2016), was filed pursuant to a tender offer whereby
Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired by Nichi-Iko
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Shepard
Vision, Inc.

Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.sagentpharma.com/is a
biopharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
     Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 984-0000
     Fax: (312) 212-4401
     E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
             malmstrom@whafh.com

        - and -

     Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Ave.
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Fax: (212) 545-4653
     E-mail: nespole@whafh.com

        - and -

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Fax: (302) 654-7530
     E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
             bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com
             jjr@rl-legal.com


SPEEDPAY INC: Motion for Judgment in "Pincus" Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Speedpay's motion for
judgment on the pleadings in a class action lawsuit remains
pending.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a
subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations
that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card
transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission
without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class
and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who
made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a
credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during
the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the
complaint through the date of class certification.

On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to
dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1)
under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which
authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2)
for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO").

On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying
Speedpay's motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed
an answer to the amended complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus
filed a second amended complaint that revised her factual
allegations, but added no new claims.

On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the second
amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for
Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims.

On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion
for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a
reply brief in support of the motion.

As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: $39.25MM Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the Court has issued an
order preliminarily approving the $39.25 million settlement to
resolve the December 2012 Securities Litigation.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period.

On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class action
lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against
the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011
and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claims
and sought similar relief.

In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed
a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended
complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or
misleading representations made during the class period extending
from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012.

In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled
on the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting
the motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.

Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs
did not assert any specific amount of compensation in the second
amended complaint. The Court granted class certification on
December 22, 2015.

On May 24, 2016, the parties agreed to resolve the case, pending
notification to class members and subject to court approval. Under
the settlement, the Company agreed to make a payment of $39.25
million to resolve all of the class claims and recorded a charge
of that amount during the second quarter of 2016. On July 13,
2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the
settlement. Concurrent with the recording of the loss, the Company
also recognized probable insurance recoveries of $39.25 million.


STONERIDGE INC: Class Certification Bid in "Verde" Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the legal proceeding,
Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., remains pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Cause No.
6:14-cv-00225- KNM.  The United States District Court has not yet
ruled on a motion for class certification.

The plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company
and others on March 26, 2014.  The plaintiff alleges that the
Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture,
distribution, and sale of a control device ("CD") that was
incorporated into a Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in
2006.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company breached express
warranties and indemnification provisions by supplying a defective
CD that was not capable of performing its intended function.  The
putative class consists of all Texas residents who own manual
transmission Chrysler vehicles model years 1994-2007 equipped with
the subject CD.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of economic loss damages
incurred by him and the putative class members associated with
inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification seeking to
certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain
automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1998-2007.  Plaintiff alleges
this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people.
In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that
damages are no more than $1,000 per person.

A hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification was
held on November 16, 2015, and the United States District Court
has not yet ruled on class certification.  On April 8, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge granted the Company's motion for partial summary
judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's indemnification claim; that
ruling was later adopted by the United States District Court.


STONERIDGE INC: "Royal" Class Action Remains Pending in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Royal v. Stoneridge,
Inc. et al. is a legal proceeding currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Cause
No. 5:14-cv-01410-F.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company,
Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company was involved in the vertical
chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was
incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiffs between
1999 and 2006.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied
warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability.
Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc.  The putative class consists of all owners
of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which includes various
Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission vehicles
manufactured from 1997-2007, which Plaintiffs allege is more than
one million vehicles.  Plaintiffs seek recovery of economic loss
damages associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly
defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and the trucks
in which they were installed, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
amount of compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and
the putative class members is unknown.

On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court granted in
part the Company's and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.'s motions
to dismiss, and dismissed four of the Plaintiffs' five claims
against the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the United States
District Court's ruling, which was denied.

The Company is vigorously defending itself against the Plaintiffs'
allegations, and has and will continue to challenge the claims as
well as class action certification. The Company believes the
likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and
therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at June
30, 2016.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Order Decertifying Class Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court of
Appeals reversed the lower court's order decertifying the class in
the Arizona Owner-operator Class Action Litigation.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472 (the "Garza Complaint"). The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied the
plaintiff's petition for class certification. The plaintiff
appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals
issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial
court's denial of class certification and remanding the case back
to the trial court.

On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to
the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class
certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals.

On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed
the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all
persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who
contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30,
1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles
driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and the named owner-operator class representative
only contracted with the Company for a three-month period under a
one-year contract that no longer exists.

In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings with
respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's
motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to
decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no
breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class
size based on statute of limitations.

On November 13, 2014, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to
add new class representatives for the employee class and therefore
the employee class remains without a plaintiff class
representative.

On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two motions for
summary judgment (1) to dismiss any claims related to the employee
class since there is no class representative; and (2) to dismiss
the plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing.

On July 14, 2015, the court granted Swift's motion to decertify
the entire class. On December 23, 2015, the plaintiff filed a
Petition for Special Action with the Arizona Court of Appeals.

On July 12, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's
order decertifying the class. Swift intends to pursue all
available appellate remedies. The final disposition of this case
and the impact of such disposition cannot be determined at this
time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Briefing to Be Completed in August 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Ninth
Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action Litigation,
dispositive motion briefing will be completed in August 2016.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1, and
Joseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Sheer Complaint").

The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal FLSA, and various New York
and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related
issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-
operators have entered into with IEL.

At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 450
other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit.
Upon Swift's motion, the matter was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
United States District Court in Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in
default under their lease agreements and related relief.

On September 30, 2010, the district court granted Swift's motion
to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed,
pending the outcome of arbitration. The district court further
denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and
motion for conditional class certification. The district court
also denied the plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a
class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the district court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated.

On July 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and thereafter the
district court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
and certified its September 30, 2010 order. The plaintiffs filed
an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
overturn the district court's September 30, 2010 order to compel
arbitration, alleging that the agreement to arbitrate is exempt
from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA") because the class of plaintiffs allegedly consists of
employees exempt from arbitration agreements.

On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded, stating its prior published decision, "expressly
held that a district court must determine whether an agreement for
arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA
as a threshold matter." As a consequence of this determination by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision
of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on
February 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whether
the district court or arbitrator should determine whether the
contract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the
Federal Arbitration Act.

On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the
Company's petition for writ of certiorari.

The matter remains pending in the district court and dispositive
motion briefing will be completed in August 2016.

The Company also filed a writ of mandamus and appeal from the
district court's order that effectively denied the Company's
motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument
on November 16, 2015, and the Court requested further briefing,
which both parties filed June 16, 2016. The parties await a
decision from the Court.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against any proceedings.
The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settles Several Robocall Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial 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
resolved several class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

The Bank or the Company is a defendant in three putative class
actions alleging claims under the TCPA as a result of phone calls
made by the Bank. In each case, the complaints allege that the
Bank or the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated
telephone dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or
automated voice without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for
each violation. The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is
unspecified.  In each case, the plaintiffs assert that they
received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts
not belonging to them.

Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on August
22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. On March 26, 2015, the Court entered an order granting
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
(for damages) and denying class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (for injunctive relief).  In the first
quarter of 2016, the Bank entered an agreement to resolve the
Abdeljalil action on a class basis.

Pursuant to the agreement, a related case (Hofer et al. v.
Synchrony Bank, which was filed on November 4, 2014 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri), was
dismissed on February 11, 2016.

On June 16, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

Johnson et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Financial
was filed on April 22, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California. The Johnson complaint also asserts
a claim under the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Anand v. Synchrony Bank and Synchrony Financial was filed on June
22, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The Anand complaint also asserts claims
under the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

In addition to the Abdeljalil, Hofer, Johnson and Anand
developments, the Bank has resolved eight other putative class
actions that made similar claims under the TCPA on an individual
basis with the class representative:

    -- Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied
Interstate LLC was filed on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida and dismissed on October
9, 2014.

     -- Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc. and GE Capital Retail
Bank was filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina and dismissed on October 20, 2014.

     -- Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 14, 2014
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and
dismissed on July 8, 2015.

     -- Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank
was filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama and dismissed on August 20, 2015.

     -- Dubanoski et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for which the
Bank indemnified the defendant, was filed on February 27, 2015 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois and dismissed on September 1, 2015.

     -- Mintz et al v. Synchrony Bank was filed on December 28,
2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and dismissed on May 11, 2016.

     -- Deutsche et al. v. Synchrony Bank et al. was filed on
March 27, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey and dismissed on June 27, 2016.

     -- Ciotti et al. v. Synchrony Financial et al. was filed on
April 27, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California and dismissed on June 2, 2016.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defending "Kincaid" Action in N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial 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 a putative class action lawsuit alleging claims under
the TCPA relating to facsimiles. In Michael W. Kincaid, DDS et al.
v. Synchrony Financial, plaintiff alleges that the Company
violated the TCPA by sending fax advertisements without consent
and without required notices, and seeks up to $1,500 for each
violation. The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is
unspecified. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on January 20, 2016.


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Failure to Pay DCIC Instructors OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Valte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
v. The United States of America, Case No. 2:16-cv-00342 (S.D.
Tex., August 12, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons
presently or formerly employed by the Defendant who attended the
Detection Canine Instructor Course ("DCIC") as student
instructors, for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


URBAN SETTLEMENT: "Dunn" Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DUNN, the Plaintiff, v. URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICES,
LLC; URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICE. LLC; URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICES,
INC.; URBAN LENDING SOLUTIONS APPRAISALS, LLC DBA URBAN
LENDING SOLUTIONS; URBAN FULFILLMENT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-
20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC 628500 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages including
unpaid wages, overtime pay, and meal/rest break premiums, pursuant
to the Labor Code.

The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff accurate itemized
statement in writing showing gross wages earned, total hours
worked by the employee, all deductions, net wages earned, and all
applicable hourly roles.

Urban Settlement sells real estate information products to the
mortgage industry, working with large banks to process and provide
information.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Freiman, Esq.
          Lawrence Freiman, Esq.
          FREIMAN LAW
          100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 700,
          Santa Monica, CA
          Telephone: (310) 917 1024
          Facsimile: (888) 835 8511
          E-mail: lawrence@freimanlaw.com
                  michael@freimanlaw.com


US PIZZA CO: Fails to Pay Servers Minimum Wages, Latcham Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANA LATCHAM and CORNELIA KUEHL, Each Individually and on Behalf
of all Others Similarly Situated v. U.S. PIZZA COMPANY, INC., Case
No. 4:16-cv-00582-BSM (E.D. Ark., August 12, 2016), alleges that
the Defendant's policies violate the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and
the Fair Labor Standards Act because the Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated servers are not compensated at a minimum of
$7.50 per hour.

U.S. Pizza Company, Inc., is an Arkansas for-profit corporation
that owns and operates several U.S. Pizza restaurants in Pulaski
County, including the U.S. Pizza restaurant located in North
Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Plaintiffs were servers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center,
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


VEREIT INC: Case Management Conference Scheduled for September 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016,
that a case management conference is scheduled before the court on
September 9, 2016, in the class action lawsuit related to the
audit committee investigation.

On October 29, 2014, the Company filed a Current Report on Form
8-K (the "October 29 8-K") reporting the Audit Committee's
conclusion, based on the preliminary findings of its
investigation, that certain previously issued consolidated
financial statements of the Company, including those included in
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2013 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the
quarters ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, and related
financial information should no longer be relied upon. Prior to
that filing, the Audit Committee previewed for the SEC the
information contained in the filing. Subsequent to that filing,
the SEC provided notice that it had commenced a formal
investigation and issued subpoenas calling for the production of
various documents. In addition, the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York contacted counsel for
the Audit Committee and counsel for the Company with respect to
this matter, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts issued a subpoena calling for the production of
various documents. The Audit Committee and the Company are
cooperating with these regulators in their investigations.
As discussed below, the Company and certain of its former officers
and current and former directors have been named as defendants in
a number of lawsuits filed following the October 29 8-K, including
class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions seeking
money damages and other relief under the federal securities laws
and state laws in both federal and state courts in New York,
Maryland and Arizona.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and current and former directors,
among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in
ten securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court
consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the
"SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The plaintiffs filed
a second amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015,
which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Certain defendants, including the Company and the OP, filed
motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint (or
portions thereof), which were granted in part and denied in part
by the court at oral argument on June 1, 2016. The Company and the
OP filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint on
July 29, 2016. A case management conference is scheduled before
the court on September 9, 2016.


VEREIT INC: Case Before Maryland Appeals Court Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016,
that Plaintiff's petition seeking further appellate review by the
Maryland Court of Appeals is pending.

Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease
in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease
stockholders, the following of which remain pending:

On June 25, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the
Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of
directors, among others, captioned Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., et
al., No. 24-C-13-004176 (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the merger agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors
because the transaction purportedly did not provide for full and
fair value for the CapLease shareholders and was not the result of
a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement allegedly
contained coercive deal protection measures and the merger was
purportedly approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement.In August 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action
filed a motion for a stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the
court that the plaintiff had agreed to join and participate in the
prosecution of other actions concerning the CapLease transaction
then pending in a New York court (which were subsequently
dismissed). The stay was granted by the Baltimore Court and the
parties have engaged in no subsequent activity in the Tarver
Action.

In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP,
CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among
others, captioned Poling v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-
006178 (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleged that the
merger agreement breached the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series
B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms
of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
("Series C") and was in violation of the Series B Articles
Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The
complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty.

In December 2013, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Poling Action, which was granted by the court in May 2015.
Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland, which affirmed the trial court's order on May 3, 2016.
Plaintiff has filed a petition seeking further appellate review by
the Maryland Court of Appeals, which is pending.


VEREIT INC: Cole Litigation Matter Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016,
that the Cole Litigation Matter remains pending.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners,
et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant. The
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in
connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole aided and
abetted those breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The
proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with
the SEC on January 17, 2014.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery
and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders,
and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of
up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Intellicorp
Records, Inc. Litigation remains pending.

On September 9, 2015, the Company was served with a nationwide
putative class action complaint filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County in Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary
Intellicorp Records, Inc. ("Intellicorp.") titled Sherri Legrand
v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. and The Cato Corporation et al.
Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio on October 8, 2015.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on
November 5, 2015 ("Amended Complaint"), which like the prior
complaint claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and alleges two putative class claims against
Intellicorp, namely (i) a  section 1681k(a)  claim on behalf of
all individuals  who were the subjects of  consumer reports
furnished  by Intellicorp, which contained  public record
information in the "Government Sanctions" section of the report on
or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the date the
class list is prepared, and (ii) a section 1681e(b) claim  on
behalf of all individuals  who were the subjects of  consumer
reports furnished  by Intellicorp, which contained  public record
information in the "Government Sanctions" section of the report
where the address or social security number of the subject of the
report do not match the social security number or address
contained in the government database on or after September 4, 2013
and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges that defendant Cato
violated the FCRA by procuring  consumer reports on the plaintiff
and other class members without making the stand-alone disclosure
required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).

Counts II and III allege that Intellicorp violated the FCRA
section 1681e (b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to
assure maximum accuracy of the adverse information included in its
consumer reports and FCRA section 1681k (a) by failing to maintain
strict procedures to assure that the public record information
reported, which was likely to have an adverse effect on the
consumer was complete and up to date, respectively.

The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants acted willfully and
seeks statutory damages for the classes in an amount not less than
one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per
violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and
attorney's fees.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "DiSalvo" Action Moved to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Defendants removed the
complaint by Frank DiSalvo to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio on July 1, 2016.

On February 1, 2016, the Company was served with a nationwide
putative class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina naming
Intellicorp. The complaint titled Frank DiSalvo v. Intellicorp
Records, Inc. claims violations of the FCRA and alleges a  section
1681b(b)(1)  claim on behalf of all individuals residing in the
United States who were the subjects of  consumer reports furnished
by Intellicorp for employment purposes within the period
prescribed by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p without first
obtaining from the user of the report a certification that such
user had complied with the obligations under Section 1681b(b)(2)
as to the subject of the consumer report.

The class complaint alleges that Intellicorp violated the FCRA
section 1681b(b)(1) by failing to obtain the required specific
certification from its customers to whom Intellicorp furnished
consumer reports as to each consumer report provided before
providing the specific consumer report that was the subject of the
certification.

The complaint alleges that the violations were willful or in the
alternative negligent and seeks statutory damages for the class in
an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one
thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, equitable
relief, costs and attorney's fees.

On April 18, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all
proceedings pending the resolution of the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339. After Spokeo
was decided on May 16, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their federal court complaint and filed a virtually identical
complaint in Ohio State court on May 27, 2016. Defendants removed
that complaint to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on July 1, 2016.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Interthinx Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Interthinx, Inc.
Litigation remains pending.

On April 20, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics,
Inc. The plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former
subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and
individuals holding comparable positions with different titles who
were employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide
and who were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims
that the review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt
employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits
that would have been received if they were properly classified as
non-exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and
seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx, Inc. At this time, it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this
matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in ISO Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal from a ruling
in the Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation remains pending.

On August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action
is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120
defendants, including the Company and ISO. Except for the Company,
ISO and the defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard
forms to assist in insurance transactions, most of the other
defendants are property and casualty insurance companies that
plaintiffs claim conspired to underpay property damage claims.
Plaintiffs claim that the Company and ISO, along with all of the
other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and
racketeering laws as well as state common law.

On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the
Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a
new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct
errors as the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint
similarly alleges that the defendants conspired to underpay
property damage claims, but does not specifically allege what role
the Company or ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. It claims
that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants,
violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well
as state common law, and seeks all available relief including
injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as
attorneys' fees.

On January 15, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal on
February 16, 2016. The Court granted defendants' motion to strike
the motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2016 and gave
plaintiffs leave to file another motion for reconsideration in
accordance with the rules which plaintiffs filed on March 11, 2016
and, which was denied by the Court on April 25, 2016.

On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's January 15, 2016 Order, which dismissed all claims in the
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs also filed an appeal of the
Court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, which the Court
of Appeals for the 10th Circuit consolidated with the appeal of
the Court's January 15, 2016 dismissal. Appellants filed their
brief in support of the consolidated appeal on July 20, 2016.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.


VULCAN MATERIALS: First Trial Date Set for March 2017
-----------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
the Texas brine lawsuit and the first trial date in any of these
cases has been set for March 2017.

During the operation of its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan was
the lessee to a salt lease from 1976 - 2005 in an underground salt
dome formation in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. The Texas Brine
Company (Texas Brine) operated this salt mine for the account of
Vulcan. Vulcan sold its Chemicals Division in 2005 and assigned
the lease to the purchaser, and Vulcan has had no association with
the leased premises or Texas Brine since that time. In August
2012, a sinkhole developed near the salt dome and numerous
lawsuits were filed in state court in Assumption Parish,
Louisiana. Other lawsuits, including class action litigation, were
also filed in August 2012 in federal court in the Eastern District
of Louisiana in New Orleans.

There are numerous defendants to the litigation in state and
federal court. Vulcan was first brought into the litigation as a
third-party defendant in August 2013 by Texas Brine. Vulcan has
since been added as a direct and third-party defendant by other
parties, including a direct claim by the state of Louisiana. The
damages alleged in the litigation range from individual
plaintiffs' claims for property damage, to the state of
Louisiana's claim for response costs, to claims for physical
damages to oil pipelines, to business interruption claims. In
addition to the plaintiffs' claims, Vulcan has also been sued for
contractual indemnity and comparative fault by both Texas Brine
and Occidental Chemical Co. (Occidental).  The total amount of
damages claimed is in excess of $500 million. It is alleged that
the sinkhole was caused, in whole or in part, by Vulcan's
negligent actions or failure to act. It is also alleged that
Vulcan breached the salt lease, as well as an operating agreement
and a drilling agreement with Texas Brine; that Vulcan is strictly
liable for certain property damages in its capacity as a former
assignee of the salt lease; and that Vulcan violated certain
covenants and conditions in the agreement under which it sold its
Chemicals Division in 2005. Vulcan has made claims for contractual
indemnity, comparative fault, and breach of contract against Texas
Brine, as well as claims for contractual indemnity and comparative
fault against Occidental. Discovery is ongoing and the first trial
date in any of these cases has been set for March 2017.

"At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of liability
pertaining to this matter," the Company said.


WASHINGTON SQUARE: "Jennings" Action Remains Pending in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a complaint was filed
against the Company's subsidiary, styled Kenneth Jennings v.
Washington Square Financial, LLC d/b/a Imperial Structured
Settlements ("Washington Square"), and is currently pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The plaintiff seeks, in a purported class action, to represent all
individuals who sold all or a part of a structured settlement
annuity to Washington Square under the Illinois Structured
Settlement Protections Act (the "Illinois Act"), where the
underlying annuity contract contained an anti-assignment clause,
and where a court issued an order under the Illinois Act approving
the transaction. The complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaration that all such transactions are void and compensatory
and punitive damages.

To date, the District Court has made no rulings with respect to
whether the claims raised in the complaint state a cause of
action. The Company has not established any provision for losses
in respect of this matter.

Incorporated in Florida, Emergent Capital, through its subsidiary
companies, owns a portfolio of 625 life insurance policies, also
referred to as life settlements, with a fair value of $473.0
million and an aggregate death benefit of approximately $3.0
billion at June 30, 2016.  The Company primarily earns income on
these policies from changes in their fair value and through death
benefits.


WESTERN UNION: Tennille and Smet Cases Pending in Colorado Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and one of
its subsidiaries are defendants in two purported class action
lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company and
Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both of which are
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.

The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various
consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and
declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits
too long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not
redeemed by the recipients and that the Company uses the
unredeemed funds to generate income until the funds are escheated
to state governments.

The Tennille complaint was served on the Company on April 27,
2009. The Smet complaint was served on the Company on April 6,
2010.

On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an
amended complaint.

The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended complaint and
the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court denied the
motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and
conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' consumer protection claims.

On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its
declaratory relief claim and WUFSI as a defendant.

On April 25, 2011, the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss
the breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI
also moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to
stay the action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the
Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the stay
request. Both companies appealed the decision.

On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District
Court proceedings pending their appeal.

During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on
January 3, 2013.  On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order
certifying the class and granting final approval to the
settlement. Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of
the settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel's
fees, administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from
the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds, which are
included within "Settlement obligations" in the Company's
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These fees and other
expenses are currently estimated to be approximately $50 million.

During the final approval hearing, the Court overruled objections
to the settlement that had been filed by several class members. In
July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal. On
May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to overrule the
objections filed by the two class members who appealed.

On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied
petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members
who appealed. On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement
agreement and the Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order,
Western Union deposited the class members' unclaimed money
transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from which class
member claims, administrative fees and class counsel's fees, as
well as other expenses will be paid.

On November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified
Western Union of the California Controller's position that Western
Union's deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the
class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement "will not satisfy
Western Union's obligations to report and remit funds" under
California's unclaimed property law, and that "Western Union will
remain liable to the State of California" for the funds that would
have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement.

The State of Pennsylvania and District of Columbia have previously
expressed similar views. Other states have also recently expressed
concerns about the settlement and many have not yet expressed an
opinion.

Since some states and jurisdictions believe that the Company must
escheat its full share of the settlement fund and that the
deductions for class counsel's fees, administrative costs, and
other expenses that are required under the settlement agreement
are not permitted, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could
result up to approximately the amount of those fees and other
expenses. However, given the number of jurisdictions involved and
the fact that no actions have been brought, the Company is unable
to provide a more precise estimate of the range of possible loss.


WESTERN UNION: Settlement in "Douglas" Case Awaits Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement in the
class action by Jason Douglas awaits final approval.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier
and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on
November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any
amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer.
However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to
satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable
to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the
parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company
believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of
amounts already accrued is remote.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Stockholders' Amended Complaint Due Aug. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff in the
stockholder litigation must file an amended complaint by August
31, 2016.

On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of us filed a putative
class action on behalf of certain purchasers of our units in the
U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as defendants,
us, Williams, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and
Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal
securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer's
intention to pursue a purchase of Williams conditioned on Williams
not closing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange when announcing the WPZ
Public Unit Exchange. The complaint seeks, among other things,
damages and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff
must file an amended complaint by August 31, 2016.

"We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this
time," the Company said.


WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Bagwell" Suit in District of Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc. The case is captioned Marcus Bagwell, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01350 (D. Conn., Aug. 9, 2016).

World Wrestling is an American publicly traded, privately
controlled entertainment company that deals primarily in
professional wrestling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brenden P. Leydon, Esq.
          TOOHER & WOCL & LEYDON LLC
          80 Fourth St.
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 324 6164
          Facsimile: (203) 324 1407
          E-mail: bleydon@tooherwocl.com


WRIGHT MEDICAL: 1,167 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending in MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, that as of June 26, 2016,
there were 1,167 product liability lawsuits pending in the MDL and
JCCP, and an additional 26 cases pending in various state courts.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant, in some
cases with multiple other defendants, in lawsuits in which it is
alleged that as yet unspecified defects in the design,
manufacture, or labeling of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement
products rendered the products defective. The lawsuits generally
employ similar allegations that use of the products resulted in
excessive metal ions and particulate in the patients into whom the
devices were implanted, in most cases resulting in revision
surgery (collectively, the CONSERVE(R) Claims). We anticipate that
additional lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip replacement
products may be brought."

"Because of the similar nature of the allegations made by several
plaintiffs whose cases were pending in federal courts, upon motion
of one plaintiff, Danny L. James, Sr., the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2012 transferred
certain actions pending in the federal court system related to
metal-on-metal hip replacement products to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for
consolidated pre-trial management of the cases before a single
United States District Court Judge (the MDL). The consolidated
matter is known as In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Conserve
Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation.

"Certain plaintiffs have elected to file their lawsuits in state
courts in California. In doing so, most of those plaintiffs have
named a surgeon involved in the design of the allegedly defective
products as a defendant in the actions, along with his personal
corporation. Pursuant to contractual obligations, we have agreed
to indemnify and defend the surgeon in those actions. Similar to
the MDL proceeding in federal court, because the lawsuits
generally employ similar allegations, certain of those pending
lawsuits in California were consolidated for pre-trial handling on
May 14, 2012 pursuant to procedures of California State Judicial
Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (the JCCP). The consolidated
matter is known as In re: Wright Hip Systems Cases, Judicial
Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4710.

"There are other individual lawsuits related to metal-on-metal hip
products pending in various state courts. As of June 26, 2016,
there were 1,167 such lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an
additional 26 cases pending in various state courts. We have also
entered into 896 so-called "tolling agreements" with potential
claimants who have not yet filed suit. There are also 40 non-U.S.
lawsuits presently pending. We believe we have data that supports
the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. While
continuing to dispute liability, we have participated in court
supervised non-binding mediation in the multi-district federal
court litigation and expect to begin similar mediation in the
JCCP.

"The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9,
2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1
million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive
damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities
and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015,
we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or,
in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages
awarded.

"On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the
punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million, but
otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit. In light of the trial judge's April 5th order, we
recorded an accrual for this verdict in the amount of $2.1 million
within "Accrued expenses and other current liabilities," and a
$2.1 million receivable associated with the probable recovery from
product liability insurance is reflected within "Other current
assets."

"The supervising judge in the JCCP has set a trial date of October
31, 2016, for the first bellwether trial in California. The
parties are currently in an expert discovery and pre-trial
procedure phase.

"We have received claims for personal injury against us associated
with fractures of our PROFEMUR(R) long titanium modular neck
product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims). As of June 26, 2016, there
were 49 pending U.S. lawsuits and 49 pending non-U.S. lawsuits
alleging such claims.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: 4 US & 5 Non-US Suits Over Modular Neck Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, that, "We are aware that
MicroPort has recalled certain sizes of its cobalt chrome modular
neck products as a result of alleged fractures. As of June 26,
2016, there were four pending U.S. lawsuits and five pending non-
U.S. lawsuits against us alleging personal injury resulting from
the fracture of a cobalt chrome modular neck.

"In June 2015, a jury returned a $4.4 million verdict against us
in a case involving a fractured hip implant stem sold prior to the
MicroPort closing. This was a one-of-a-kind case unrelated to the
modular neck fracture cases we have previously reported. There are
no other cases pending related to this component, nor are we aware
of other instances where this component has fractured. The case,
Alan Warner et al. vs. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. et al.,
case no. BC 475958, was tried in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District.

"In September 2015, the trial judge reduced the jury verdict to
$1.025 million and indicated that if the plaintiff did not accept
the reduced award he would schedule a new trial solely on the
issue of damages. The plaintiff elected not to accept the reduced
damage award, and both parties have appealed. The Court has not
set a date for a new trial on the issue of damages and we do not
expect it will do so until the appeals are adjudicated."


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Updates on Wright-Tornier Merger Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, provided updates on the
Wright/Tornier Merger Related Litigation.

Beginning on November 25, 2014, purported shareholders of WMG
filed a number of class action complaints (Delaware Actions) in
the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware (Delaware Chancery
Court), many of which were later amended. The complaints and
amended complaints in the Delaware Actions named as defendants
WMG, Tornier, Trooper Holdings Inc. (Holdco), Trooper Merger Sub
Inc. (Merger Sub) and the members of the WMG board of directors.
The Delaware Actions generally asserted various causes of action,
including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG
shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly failed to disclose material
information about the merger. The Delaware Actions further alleged
that WMG, Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of
directors.

On March 2, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Actions, specifically Paul Parshall v. Wright Medical
Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB, and Anthony Marks as
Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 10706-CB, under the caption In re Wright Medical
Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10400-CB
(Consolidated Delaware Action). A later-filed case, Michael Prince
v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al., C.A. No. 10829-CB, was also made
part of the Consolidated Delaware Action by order dated May 22,
2015.

On April 8, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court entered a Stipulated
Order dismissing the Consolidated Delaware Action as moot, with
prejudice as to Plaintiffs' claims, and without prejudice as to
other members of the putative class. The court retained
jurisdiction to hear any mootness fee application that plaintiffs
in the Consolidated Delaware Action may choose to file. In lieu of
such application, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action
subsequently agreed that we would pay $250,000 directly to
Plaintiffs' counsel in full satisfaction of Plaintiffs' claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the action. The Court of Chancery
has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the
payment of a fee or its reasonableness. We have been advised that
the costs associated with the Consolidated Delaware Action will be
covered by relevant insurance.

On November 26, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District,
at Memphis (Tennessee Circuit Court), by a purported shareholder
of WMG under the caption City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary
D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An amended complaint in the
action was filed on January 5, 2015. The amended complaint names
as defendants WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, and the members of
the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint asserts various
causes of action, including, among other things, that the members
of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the
merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The amended complaint further
alleges that Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 2, 2014, a separate class action complaint was filed
in the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of WMG
under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed
on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants
WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and the
members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint
asserts various causes of action, including, among other things,
that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with
entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and
causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails
to disclose material information about the merger. The amended
complaint further alleges that WMG, Tornier, Warburg Pincus LLC,
Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is
seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or
rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court
transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford
et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for
consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an order
dated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed the
Consolidated Tennessee Action; that stay expired upon completion
of the Wright/Tornier merger.


Y.Y.K. ENTERPRISES: "Fuselier" Suit Moved to S.D. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donnell Fuselier and Max Mowery, individually, on behalf of
himself, and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Y.Y.K. Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation; Steve
Johnston, individual; Paul Ralph, individual; and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02016-00022133-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02002-MMA-JLB
to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Michael M. Anello.

Y.Y.K. Enterprises was founded in 2008. The company's line of
business includes providing special trade contracting services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Craig Clark, Esq.
          CLARK LAW FIRM
          205 West Date Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239 1321
          Facsimile: (888) 273 4554
          E-mail: cclark@clarklawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Harvey C Berger, Esq.
          POPE, BERGER, WILLIAMS
          & REYNOLDS, LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595 1366
          Facsimile: (619) 236 9677
          E-mail: berger@popeberger.com


YORK BAGELS: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Rojas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. York Bagels Inc. d/b/a Bagels & Co., Haim Levi, Yuval
Aroety, Vlad Djouraev, and Yuri Iskhakov, Case No. 1:16-cv-06429
(S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Bagels & Co. restaurant in New
York.

Marco Rojas is a pro se plaintiff.


                            *********


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  * * *