CAR_Public/160823.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 168




                            Headlines


A&S SERVICES: Faces "Harmon" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Submission
ADF MIDATLANTIC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Keim" Class Suit
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Kelley" Suit in New Jersey Dismissed
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: $5.75MM Class Suit Settlement Awaits Final OK

ALASIA LLC: Sued in Tex. Over "Violation" of Debt Collection Act
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Oral Arguments in Appeal Set for October 2016
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Appeal in "Williams" Case Pending
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Jimenez" Case Pending in California
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Perez-Brown Case Pending in New York

ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Rosenberg" Case Stayed in Illinois
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Discovery Underway in Romero Proceedings
AMEDISYS INC: Mediation Failed in M.D. La. Securities Suit
AMEDISYS INC: $800,000 Deal in Wage & Hour Suit Awaits Court OK
AMERICAN BANCARD: "West" Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Sept 15

AMERICAN CAPITAL: Faces "Sutton" Shareholder Action in Maryland
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Defendant in "Bercury" Shareholder Action
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Defendant in "Tischler" Shareholder Action
AMERICAN CAPITAL: "Barba" Class Action Filed in Maryland
AMERICAN PRO ENERGY: Sued by Keledjian in Cal. for Violating TCPA

AMERICAN SCIENCE: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Proposed Sale to OSI
AMIGOS RESTAURANT: Faces "Marte" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over "Violation" of Debt Collection Act
AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS: Sued in N.J. Over Disability Discrimination
B. WINGERS INC: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging Violations of FLSA

BAYLOR COLLEGE: Ohakweh, et al. Seek Certification of Class
BAYSIDE RECOVERY: Faces "McDonald" Suit in S.D. of Alabama
BECTON DICKINSON: Opposed Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Complaint
BETTER PLANET: "Morales" Asserts False Ad Over Acure(R) Products
BOGOPA INC: "Bong" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

BREATHLESS INC: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Moon" Class Suit
BUREAUS INVESTMENTS: Sued Over "Violation" of Debt Collection Act
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition Due Aug. 26
CFLP INTERESTS: Sued in Tex. Over Debt Collection Act "Violation"
CHANNELADVISOR CORP: 4th Cir. Appeal Over Case Dismissal Underway

CITIZEN EMPLOYEE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Sanchez" Suit Says
CONCORDIA INT'L: Has Made False & Misleading Reports, Meyer Says
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Appeal of "Hybrid" Class Ruling Underway
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Oct. 7 Hearing Set to Approve Settlement
CUMULUS MEDIA: Pre-1972 Recordings Class Suit Underway

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Sentosa" Suit Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: McGuire Family Suit Alleges Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Meadow Creek Suit Alleges Misappraisal
DRUG DEPOT: Fauley's Placeholder Motion for Class Cert. Dismissed
DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Price Reporting Suits Being Finalized

DUKE ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Florida Customers Suit Pending
DUKE ENERGY: Antitrust Suit Settlement Approved
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing in Scranton Case Appeal Underway
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Ty Rayner Class Suit Still Pending
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Craig L. Schwab Files Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.

ENCORE CAPITAL: 6th Circuit Affirms Settlement Approval
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Faces "Shishmanian" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
ERIN CAPITAL: Sued in Tex. Over Debt Collection Act "Violation"
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Rosbottom" Suit in D.S.C.
FIRST STUDENT: Suit in Ohio Seeks Back Pay Under Federal Law

FORESITE REALTY: Faces "Gibbs" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
FORMFACTOR INC: Settlement of Shareholders' Suit Pending
FORMFACTOR INC: Merits Discovery Underway in Employee's Suit
FOX RESTAURANT: Faces "Dayton" Suit Seeking Wages Under FLSA
GERON CORP: Still Defends California Securities Suit

GREAT PLAINS ENERGY: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pending
GUARDIAN PROTECTION: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Danganan" Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Defending Class Suits Over Dental Supplies
HSBC FINANCE: "Jaffe" Deal Awaits Final Court Approval
HSBC FINANCE: Anticipates Parties to Review in Credit Card Suit

HSBC FINANCE: Responded to "Monteleone" TCPA Litigation
HSBC USA: Benchmark Rate Litigation in Early Stages
HSBC USA: Transfer of "Zapata" Case to S.D.N.Y. Sought
HSBC USA: Responded to Ahmed and Monteleone Complaints
HUMANA INC: Shareholder Action in Kentucky Remains Pending

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Court Narrows Claims in "Tawil" Suit
INSMED INCORPORATED: Faces "Hoey" Class Suit in New Jersey
INSULET CORPORATION: Arkansas Teacher's Suit Remains Pending
JOHNS HOPKINS: Accused by Kelly of Breaching Duties Under ERISA
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Did Not Pay Proper Overtime, "Nealy" Suit Says

KEMET CORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Antitrust Suits
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "King" Securities Suit in N.Y.
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Ruling in "Lafollette" Suit to 8th Cir.
LINKEDIN CORP: Badiian & Hoffman Suits Filed Over Microsoft Deal
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Briefing on Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 2017

LTD FINANCIAL: Cohen Seeks Review of D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
MASIMO CORP: California Suit Remains Stayed Pending FTC Petition
MASIMO CORP: Alabama Class Action Appeal Still Pending
MDC PARTNERS: Bid to Dismiss North Collier Case Underway
MDC PARTNERS: No Case Conference Yet in Canada Suit

MDL 1950: Settlement of Remaining Class Claims Has Court Approval
MDL 2326: Boston Scientific Still in Talks to Resolve Mesh Claims
MERITOR INC: Preparing Response to Class Actions
METHODIST HEALTHCARE: Faces "Adams" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
MIAMI INT'L: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

MIDWEST MOVING: "Drake" Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Oct. 5
MITEL NETWORKS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for October 12
NEW YORK: SCA Faces Clean Suit Over Alleged Breach of Contract
NOLAN ENTERPRISES: "Matos" Sues Over Discrimination
OFFICE DEPOT: $3.53-Mil. Accord in "Heitzenrater" Has Final OK

PETE'S LAWN: Faces "Becerra" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law
PETROQUEST ENERGY: Suit Over February Debt Exchange Pending
PINNACLE SERVICES: Faces "Farr" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
PLS CHECK: Faces "Rangel" Class Suit Over Violations of FLSA
PNC FINANCIAL: Interchange Case to Resume in District Court

PNC FINANCIAL: Case Settlement Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
POLYCOM INC: "Solak" Lawsuit in N.D. Cal. Dismissed
POLYCOM INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Investment Case Pending
PTC THERAPEUTICS: 3 Securities Class Suits Pending in New Jersey

QUEEN STUCCO: Faces "Hopson" Suit Seeking Relief Under FLSA
QUILTING DELIGHTS: Wilder Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
RALPHS GROCERY: Perez Sues for Retaliation & Illegal Termination
RELYPSA INC: Morales Sues Over Proposed $1.53BB Sale to Galenica
RITECORP ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued Pursuant to FLSA, Col. Wage Act

SACRAMENTO BEE: Sole Defendant in Carriers' Class Action
SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS: Court Rules Class Cert. in "Alexander" Suit
SAFETY-KLEEN: 62 Product Liability Cases Pending as of June 30
SEMPRA ENERGY: 181 Gas Leak Suits Filed as of July 28
SENIOR LIVING: Faces "White" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA

SEQUENOM INC: Malkoff Challenges Proposed $2.5BB Sale to LabCorp
SHINOLA: Faces "Huber" Suit in Southern District of New York
SHIVA ESTATE: "Jaffer" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
SIN DULCE BAKERY: Faces "Quintanilla" Suit S.D. of New York
SOLARCITY CORP: Hides Declining Demand on Products, Mueller Says

SONIYA HOTEL: Faces "Balczyrak-Lichosyt" Suit Seeking OT Pay
SOUNDEXCHANGE INC: Marie Sues to Collect Copyright Act Royalties
SR-73 AND LAKESIDE: Schaefer Sues Over Disability Discrimination
STAAR SURGICAL: Still Defends "Todd" Action in C.D. Cal.
STEVE MADDEN: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Over Sexual Harassment

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Michael W. Kincaid Alleges TCPA Violation
TC PIPELINES: Class Action Appeal to be Heard in Late-2016
TRANSOCEAN LTD: DeKalb County Files Appeal in U.S. Supreme Court
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Mendlowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TRINET GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Welgus" Suit Pending in N.D. Cal.

TRISTAR PLUMBING: Faces "Chen" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
ULTIMATE INC: "Moran" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Damages
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Matching Plan ERISA Class Suit
VASCO DATA: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
VECTREN CORPORATION: Court to Consider Summary Judgment Bid First

VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: $9-Mil. Settlement Granted Final Approval
VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Sued Over "Defective" Timing Chain
W&W LOGISTICS: Faces Tex. Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
WAL-MART: "Stephan" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NJ Wage Law
WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces "McIntosh" Suit Over Bottled Water Tax

WARDLAW CLAIMS: Pennington Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
WHITEWAVE FOODS: McDonald Challenges Planned $10BB Sale to Danone
XOMA CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Markette" Class Action
YEN YEN: "Bravo" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ill. Wage Law Violations


                            *********


A&S SERVICES: Faces "Harmon" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HARMON 914 Deer Court Abingdon, Maryland 21009 Resident of
Harford County Collective/Class Action Claim Individually and On
Behalf of Other Similarly Situated Employees v. A&S SERVICES
GROUP, LLC 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101 Dover, Delaware 19904
Serve: Resident Agent National Corporate Research, LTD 1519 York
Road Lutherville, Maryland 21093 Case No: 1:16-cv-02777-JFM (D.
Md.), August 5, 2016), was filed under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code
Annotated, Labor and Employment Article, and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant is in the business of providing transportation and
distribution services. Defendant operates a regional delivery
network of private fleets. These networks are partnership-oriented
and are carried out by means of a supply chain. Defendant provides
logistical solutions focused on high-quality support. Defendant
maintains over 40 loading docks and offers connecting rail
services to serve its clients' needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq.
     Joseph E. Spicer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
             jspicer@nicholllaw.com


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Pharmaceuticals 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 Court has taken
the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit under submission.

In March 2015, following the Company's announcement of the update
to the timing of its planned NDA submission to the FDA for
NUPLAZID for the treatment of Parkinson's disease psychosis
("PDP") and the subsequent decline of the price of its common
stock, two putative securities class action complaints (captioned
Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB,
and Wright v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0593-
BTM-DHB) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Court") against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers. The complaints
generally alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the timing of the
Company's planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On April 10 and June 1, 2015, the Court entered orders deferring
the defendants' response to the Rihn and Wright complaints until
after the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and assigned lead
counsel. On May 12, 2015, several putative stockholders filed
separate motions to consolidate the two actions and be appointed
lead plaintiff. On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order
consolidating the two actions, appointing lead plaintiff, and
assigning lead counsel.

On November 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint with the Court which, like the prior complaints, accused
the defendants of making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the anticipated timing of the Company's
planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID.

On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on March 22, 2016. The defendants
filed their reply to plaintiffs' opposition on April 21, 2016. The
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled for May
20, 2016.

The Court did not have a hearing but took the motion to dismiss
under submission. The Company has assessed such legal proceedings,
and given the unpredictability inherent in litigation, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of these matters. At this time, the
Company is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses
that may result from such legal proceedings, and it has not
accrued any amounts in connection with such legal proceedings
other than ongoing attorneys' fees.


ADF MIDATLANTIC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Keim" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN KEIM, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADF
MIDATLANTIC, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 12-80577-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Judge Kenneth
A. Marra denied the motion filed by the defendants, ADF
MidAtlantic, LLC, ADF Pizza I, LLC, and ADF PA, LLC (the "ADF
Companies"), to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of Judge Marra's August 10, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/CfqbPG from Leagle.com.

Brian Keim, a Florida resident filed the class-action lawsuit
against Pizza Hut, Inc. and the ADF Companies alleging violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) after he began
receiving unwanted text messages containing Pizza Hut
advertisements from text-message marketing companies, Songwhale,
LLC and Cellit, LLC.  The ADF Companies moved to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

Brian Keim, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Wells, Keogh Law,
LTD,Katherine Bowen, Keogh Law, LTD, pro hac vice, Patrick
Christopher Crotty, The Law Office of Scott D. Owens & Scott David
Owens, SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A..

ADF Midatlantic, LLC, American Huts, Inc., ADF Pizza I, LLC, ADF
PA, LLC, Defendants, represented by David S. Almeida --
dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullins, Richter &
Hampton, LLP, David V. King, King & Chaves, LLC & Mark S. Eisen
-- meisen@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP, pro hac vice.

Pizza Hut, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Eisen,
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, pro hac vice & David V.
King, King & Chaves, LLC.


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Kelley" Suit in New Jersey Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey has granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case,
Kelley et al. v. Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

A putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Kelley et al.
v. Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03007,
was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on April 29, 2015.

An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2015 on behalf of
a purported class of persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities
between June 25, 2014 and April 23, 2015. The amended complaint
asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and alleged that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements or omitted allegedly material information
during that period related to, among other things, the prospects
of the Company's initial Phase 3 trial of RhopressaTM, named
"Rocket 1," and RhopressaTM. On November 30, 2015, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. The Company considers the matter concluded.


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: $5.75MM Class Suit Settlement Awaits Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerohive Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has directed
the parties in a class action lawsuit to take further actions to
effect the settlement pending final Court approval.

Under the deal, Aerohive will pay approximately $1.22 million of
the $5.75 million settlement amount.

The Company said, "In June 2015, a class action complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Mateo, against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. This action was subsequently
related and consolidated with two identical, follow-on complaints
and is captioned Hunter v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al.,
Shareholder Litigation, Master File No. 534070. The consolidated
complaint alleges claims under federal securities laws that the
Registration Statement which the Company filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Form S-1 in connection with its initial
public offering in March 2014 contained false and/or misleading
statements or omissions. The consolidated action also names as
defendants the investment firms who underwrote the Company's
initial public offering."

"The consolidated complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement failed to disclose, among other things, product
deficiencies, poor sales, and a decline in sales-related
personnel. The complaint additionally alleges that the Company
improperly recognized revenue, including by booking certain sales
with rights of return. The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company is
advancing certain defense costs with respect to individual
defendants, including the underwriting investment firms, under
written indemnification agreements.

"During mediation, the parties reached a settlement, providing for
payment to the class of plaintiffs in the amount of $5.75 million
in return for a release of all claims against the defendants,
including Aerohive and its current and former officers and
directors. The Court has preliminary approved the settlement, and
directed the parties to take further actions to effect the
settlement pending final Court approval. Pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, Aerohive will pay approximately $1.22 million of
the $5.75 million settlement amount (reflecting the amount
remaining under Aerohive's insurance retention), and the Company's
insurance carrier will pay the remainder of the settlement
amount."


ALASIA LLC: Sued in Tex. Over "Violation" of Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ALASIA LLC, Case No: DC-16-08559, filed in the
Judicial District Courts in Dallas County, Texas on July 18, 2016,
alleges that judgments were obtained by the Defendant by filing
debt collection lawsuits against Plaintiff in violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

ALASIA LLC is "debt buyer" and/or "debt collector" engaged in the
business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts
of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer
creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     ROSS TETER, Esq.
     TETER LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 815823
     Dallas, TX 75381-5823
     Phone: (214) 850-8095
     Fax: (972) 243-2510
     E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Oral Arguments in Appeal Set for October 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, 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 Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals is considering a class action appeal for possible oral
arguments in October 2016.

The Company said, "On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a
lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"),
Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth
B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action"). On
July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the
same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012.
The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that
during the purported class period defendants failed to take an
appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29,
2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees."

"On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint.

"On August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss
without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Briefing for the appeal was completed in May 2015 and the Ninth
Circuit notified the parties that it is considering the case for
possible oral arguments in October 2016.

"Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any."


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Appeal in "Williams" Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 on a court
ruling that decertified classes in the case, Christopher Williams,
et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, remains pending.

The case was filed in December 2007. The case involves two
classes:

     -- The first class includes auto field physical damage
adjusters employed in the state of California from January 1, 2005
to the date of final judgment, to the extent the Company failed to
pay for off-the-clock work to those adjusters who performed
certain duties prior to their first assignments.

     -- The other class includes all non-exempt employees in
California from December 19, 2006 until June 2011 who received pay
statements from Allstate which allegedly did not comply with
California law.

On April 13, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
decertify both classes; both classes are thus dissolved unless and
until the appellate court orders the classes recertified. On May
17, 2016, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.

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


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Jimenez" Case Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 against the case, Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate
Insurance Company.

Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
September 2010. The plaintiffs allege that they worked off-the-
clock; they also allege other California Labor Code violations
resulting from purported unpaid overtime.

In April 2012, the court certified a class that includes all
adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters,
from September 29, 2006 to final judgment. Allstate appealed the
court's decision to certify the class, first to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Allstate's
petition for a writ of certiorari. The case was scheduled for
trial on September 27, 2016. On May 4, 2016, the court vacated
that trial date in part because the court had not approved a trial
plan.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Perez-Brown Case Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 case of Maria
Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v. Allstate Insurance
Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that no-fault claim
adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt employees
under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case was filed in April 2011, and the plaintiffs are seeking
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On September 16, 2014,
the court certified a class of no-fault adjusters under New York
Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act
class of no-fault adjusters. Notice to the class was issued in
December 2015 and no opt outs were received.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Rosenberg" Case Stayed in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 is
litigating one class action, Randy Rosenberg, et al. v. Allstate
Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, and
Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This case is
brought on behalf of health care providers and insureds who
submitted claims for no-fault benefits under personal injury
protection policies which were in effect from 2008 through 2012
and were reimbursed based on the fee schedules. They seek a
declaratory judgment that Allstate could not properly apply the
fee schedules and seek damages for the difference between what
they allege are the reasonable medical expenses payable under the
personal injury protection coverage and the fee schedule amounts
Allstate actually paid. They also seek recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to Florida statutes.

This case has been stayed by the Illinois federal court pending
the outcome of several Florida state court appeals and a decision
on this issue by the Florida Supreme Court.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Discovery Underway in Romero Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 discovery is ongoing in
the Romero I and II consolidated proceedings.

The Company is defending certain matters in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the
Company's agency program reorganization announced in 1999. The
principal focus in these matters has related to a release of
claims signed by the vast majority of the former agents whose
employment contracts were terminated in the reorganization
program. The court recently entered a schedule for determining the
merits of certain claims , with the release issue to be addressed
in unspecified future proceedings.

Romero I

In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on behalf of a
putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee agents,
filed a putative class action alleging claims for age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a
claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims
constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits.

Romero II

A putative nationwide class action was also filed in 2001 by
former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA
("Romero II"). This action has been consolidated with Romero I.
The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in
Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension
Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent
contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents
Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole"
or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result
of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor
status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and
December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged
amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits
revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents,
and attorneys' fees and costs. The court granted the Company's
initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

Romero I and II consolidated proceedings

In 2004, the court ruled that the release was voidable and
certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents
who had signed the release, for purposes of effectuating the
court's declaratory judgment that the release was voidable. In
2007, the court vacated its ruling and granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed and
in July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the
Company's favor, remanded the case to the trial court for
additional discovery, and instructed the trial court to address
the validity of the release after additional discovery. Following
the completion of discovery limited to the validity of the
release, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with
respect to the validity of the release.

On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs' and the
Company's motions for summary judgment, concluding that the
question of whether the releases were knowingly and voluntarily
signed under a totality of circumstances test raised disputed
issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Among other things, the
court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all claims
in Romero I and II.

On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class as to certain
issues relating to the validity of the release. The court denied
plaintiffs' class certification motion on October 6, 2014,
stating, among other things, that individual factors and
circumstances must be considered to determine whether each release
signer entered into the release knowingly and voluntarily. The
court entered an order on December 11, 2014, (a) stating that the
court's October 6, 2014 denial of class certification as to
release-related issues did not resolve whether issues relating to
the merits of plaintiffs' claims may be subject to class
certification at a later time, and (b) holding that the court's
October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of the statute of
limitation for any former employee agent who wished to challenge
the validity of the release.

In an order entered January 7, 2015, the court denied
reconsideration of its December 11, 2014 order and clarified that
all statutes of limitations to challenge the release would resume
running on March 2, 2015. Since the Court's January 7, 2015 order,
a total of 459 additional individual plaintiffs have filed
separate lawsuits similar to Romero I or sought to intervene in
the Romero I action. Trial proceedings commenced to determine the
question of whether the releases of the original named plaintiffs
in Romero I and II were knowingly and voluntarily signed.

Additionally, plaintiffs asserted two equitable defenses to the
release which were to be determined by the court and not the jury.
As to the first trial proceeding involving ten plaintiffs, the
jury reached verdicts on June 17, 2015 finding that two plaintiffs
signed their releases knowingly and voluntarily and eight
plaintiffs did not sign their releases knowingly and voluntarily.

On January 28, 2016, the court entered its opinion and judgment
finding in Allstate's favor as to all ten plaintiffs on the two
equitable defenses to the release. The trial result is not yet
final and may be subject to further proceedings. The remaining two
trials for the original Romero I and II plaintiffs were scheduled
to commence in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the order
setting these trials was subsequently vacated.

On February 1, 2016, these cases were reassigned to a new judge
who initially entered orders addressing pending motions for
reconsideration of the dismissal of plaintiffs' state law claims,
but then vacated those orders.

On April 12, 2016, these cases were again reassigned to a new
judge. On May 2, 2016, the new judge entered an order vacating the
setting of additional release trials, consolidating all of the
original and intervening plaintiffs' claims, and granting leave to
file a Consolidated Amended Complaint by May 20, 2016.

The court entered a second order on May 2, 2016, scheduling
deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of summary
judgment motions on the merits of plaintiffs' ERISA and ADEA
claims, and setting a non-jury ERISA trial to occur in December
2016. The court's order also sets deadlines for completion of
discovery and summary judgment motions with regard to the
remaining claims and defenses by the first quarter of 2017, with a
jury trial on those claims and defenses to occur in May 2017.

On May 4, 2016, the court entered an order denying Allstate's
post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to
the jury's June 17, 2015 verdicts in favor of eight plaintiffs on
the issue whether they knowingly and voluntarily signed their
releases.

On May 20, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on
behalf of 499 plaintiffs, most of whom had previously filed
separate lawsuits or intervened in Romero I. Allstate filed a
partial motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint,
which the court granted in part and denied in part on July 6,
2016. Among other things, the court denied without prejudice
Allstate's motion to dismiss the state law claims, granted
dismissal of plaintiffs' retaliation claims under the ADEA and
ERISA, and granted dismissal of certain plaintiffs' ERISA Sec. 510
claims as untimely. Discovery is proceeding.

Based on the trial court's February 28, 2014 order in Romero I and
II, if the validity of the release is decided in favor of the
Company for any plaintiff, that would preclude any damages or
other relief being awarded to that plaintiff. The final resolution
of these matters is subject to various uncertainties and
complexities including how trials, post trial motions, possible
appeals with respect to the validity of the release, and any
rulings on the merits will be resolved.

In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable.


AMEDISYS INC: Mediation Failed in M.D. La. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, 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 parties in the
securities class action lawsuits were unable to resolve this
matter during the mediation.

On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana (the "District Court") against the Company and
certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional
putative securities class actions were filed in the District Court
on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about our business, financial condition, operations
and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our
business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The
Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June
28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District
Court denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. On
October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth
Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as
a whole court. On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the
defendants' motion for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit panel's
decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the
Securities Complaint. The case then returned to the District Court
for further proceedings.

On March 30, 2015, the defendants filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari (the "Petition") with the United States Supreme Court
asking the Supreme Court to consider whether the Fifth Circuit
erred in reversing the District Court's dismissal of the
Securities Complaint. The Supreme Court denied the Petition on
June 29, 2015, which did not affect the ongoing proceedings before
the District Court, including the District Court's consideration
of a motion filed on April 3, 2015, by the Co-Lead Plaintiffs for
leave to amend the Securities Complaint, which motion was granted
by the District Court.

On December 15, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Co-Lead Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint. All
discovery in the case is currently stayed pursuant to federal law.
The parties agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated
settlement of this matter, and a mediation was held on June 21,
2016. The parties were unable to resolve this matter during the
mediation.


AMEDISYS INC: $800,000 Deal in Wage & Hour Suit Awaits Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, 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 $0.8 million
settlement of a wage and hour litigation remains subject to court
approval.

On September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against us in which a former
employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former employee
claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, and
that such a pay scheme resulted in her misclassification as an
exempt employee, thereby denying her overtime. The plaintiff
alleges violations of federal and state law and seeks damages
under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of
similar employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois
statute.

On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay
the case pending resolution of class certification issues and
dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case. On
December 23, 2015, the parties agreed to explore the possibility
of a mediated settlement of the Illinois case, and a mediation
occurred on April 18, 2016. The parties agreed to settle the case
for $0.8 million, subject to court approval, which the Company has
accrued as of June 30, 2016.


AMERICAN BANCARD: "West" Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Sept 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ronald A. Guzman entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned West Loop Chiropractic & Sports Injury Center, Ltd., et
al., the Plaintiff, v. North American Bancard, LLC, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05856 (N.D. Ill.), generally
continuing Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 18,
2016, a status hearing was held on that day, and another status
hearing is set on September 15, 2016 at 09:30 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1sMnqREo


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Faces "Sutton" Shareholder Action in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Capital, 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 Larry Sutton filed on
or about June 24, 2016, 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 mergers. 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 mergers. The complaint further alleges that the directors
exacerbated this failure by including deal protection devices in
the proposed mergers that precluded other bidders from making a
higher offer to American Capital.

On May 16, 2016, the Company's Board of Directors suspended the
share repurchase program for an indefinite period, and under the
May 23, 2016 Agreement and Plan of Merger with Ares Capital
Corporation, a Maryland corporation and certain of its affiliates.

A purported claim is asserted against Ares Capital, among others,
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 merger between Ares Capital
and American Capital until the company adopts a process to obtain
a merger providing the best available terms for the shareholders.

In the event that the proposed mergers are completed, the
complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages for all losses
resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. American
Capital believes that these claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Defendant in "Bercury" Shareholder Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Capital, 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 Renee J. Bercury, Renee
J. Bercury IRA, William T. Bercury, William T. Bercury IRA, Atha
P. Bercury, John G. Bercury, and Bercury Homes, Ltd. filed on or
about July 12, 2016, 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.

The action alleges that 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
mergers. The complaint further alleges that the proposed merger
was the product of flawed sales process due to the directors'
conflicts of interest and use of deal protection devices in the
proposed merger with Ares Capital that precluded other bidders
from making a higher offer to American Capital.

On May 16, 2016, the Company's Board of Directors suspended the
share repurchase program for an indefinite period, and under the
May 23, 2016 Agreement and Plan of Merger with Ares Capital
Corporation, a Maryland corporation and certain of its affiliates.

A purported claim is asserted against Ares Capital, among others,
for aiding and abetting American Capital's directors' alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin
the shareholder vote on the merger until the company adopts a
process to obtain a merger providing the best available terms for
the shareholders.

In the event that the proposed mergers are consummated, the
complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages for all losses
resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. American
Capital believes that these claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Defendant in "Tischler" Shareholder Action
------------------------------------------------------------
American Capital, 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 Garry Tischler filed on
or about July 21, 2016, 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.

The action alleges that 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
mergers. The complaint further alleges that the proposed merger
was the product of flawed sales process due to the directors'
conflicts of interest, reliance an allegedly conflicted financial
advisor to evaluate the fairness of the merger consideration and
use of deal protection devices in the proposed merger with Ares
Capital that precluded other bidders from making a higher offer to
American Capital.

On May 16, 2016, the Company's Board of Directors suspended the
share repurchase program for an indefinite period, and under the
May 23, 2016 Agreement and Plan of Merger with Ares Capital
Corporation, a Maryland corporation and certain of its affiliates.

A purported claim is asserted against Ares Capital, among others,
for aiding and abetting American Capital's directors' alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin
the shareholder vote on the merger until the company adopts a
process to obtain a merger providing the best available terms for
the shareholders.

In the event that the proposed mergers are consummated, the
complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages for all losses
resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. American
Capital believes that these claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: "Barba" Class Action Filed in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------
American Capital, 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 on or about July 27,
2016, Paul Barba filed a putative shareholder class action
allegedly on behalf of all holders of the common stock of American
Capital against the members of the American Capital's board of
directors in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.
The action alleges that the American Capital's directors failed to
adequately discharge their fiduciary duties to the 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 mergers.

On May 16, 2016, the Company's Board of Directors suspended the
share repurchase program for an indefinite period, and under the
May 23, 2016 Agreement and Plan of Merger with Ares Capital
Corporation, a Maryland corporation and certain of its affiliates.

The complaint further alleges that the proposed merger was the
product of flawed sales process due to the directors' conflicts of
interest, reliance an allegedly conflicted financial advisor to
evaluate the fairness of the merger consideration and use of deal
protection devices in the proposed merger with Ares Capital that
precluded other bidders from making a higher offer to American
Capital. The complaint seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote on the
merger until the company adopts a process to obtain a merger
providing the best available terms for the shareholders.

In the event that the proposed mergers are consummated, the
complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages for all losses
resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. American
Capital believes that these claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.


AMERICAN PRO ENERGY: Sued by Keledjian in Cal. for Violating TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KELEDJIAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AMERICAN PRO ENERGY; AUDACITY NETWORKS
LIMITED; A1 SOLAR POWER, INC.; and OLVI MALKA, an Individual, Case
No. 2:16-cv-06039 (C.D. Cal., August 11, 2016), arises from the
alleged illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently
contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his
privacy.

American Pro Energy is a solar system company.  Audacity Networks
Limited is a company and owner of one or more of the telephone
numbers used by Defendant American Pro Energy used to make
telephone calls to the Plaintiff.  A1 Solar Power Inc. is a
company and owner of one or more of the telephone numbers used by
Defendant American Pro Energy used to make telephone calls to the
Plaintiff.  Olvi Malka is an individual and the chief executive
officer of A1.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


AMERICAN SCIENCE: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Proposed Sale to OSI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Science and Engineering, Inc., Charles P.
Dougherty, Hamilton W. Helmer, Don R. Kania, John Sanders, Robert
N. Shanddock, Mark S. Thompson, and Jennifer Vogel, Case No. 16-
2344 (Mass. Cmmw., August 15, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
public stockholders of American Science and Engineering, Inc., to
enjoin the proposed sale of AS&E to OSI Systems, Inc., through a
flawed process and inadequate consideration.

American Science and Engineering, Inc. is a manufacturer of X-ray
equipment and related technologies.

OSI Systems, Inc. develops and markets security and inspection
systems such as airport security X-ray machines and metal
detectors, medical monitoring and anesthesia systems, and
optoelectronic devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
      MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
      18 Grove Street, Suite 5
      Wellesley, MA 02482
      Telephone: (781) 453-0100
      E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com


AMIGOS RESTAURANT: Faces "Marte" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Marte on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, v. Amigos Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Los Amigos Restaurant,
Ana Acosta, and John Does #1-10, Case 1:16-cv-05684-RA (S.D.N.Y.,
July 18, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants owned and operated a restaurant in the Bronx.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Stein, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 563-9884
     E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over "Violation" of Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC, Case No: DC-16-08577, filed in
the Judicial District Courts in Dallas County, Texas on July 18,
2016, alleges that judgments were obtained by the Defendant by
filing debt collection lawsuits against Plaintiff in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC is a "debt buyer" and/or "debt collector"
engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection
lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged
assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in
interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ross Teter, Esq.
     TETER LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 815823
     Dallas, TX 75381-5823
     Phone: (214) 850-8095
     Fax: (972) 243-2510
     E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS: Sued in N.J. Over Disability Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Kaminski v. Automotive Rentals, Inc. and John Does 1-5
and 6-10, Case No. L-2980-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., August 15, 2016),
arises out of the Defendants' alleged discrimination based on
disability.

Automotive Rentals, Inc. is a vehicle fleet management services
company located at 4001 Leadenhall Road, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey
08054.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (856) 727-9700


B. WINGERS INC: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Calero, Luis Eduardo Ortiz, and Santiago Galvez Estrada,
on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
v. B. Wingers, Inc. d/b/a Best Wingers, Best Wingers LLC, Amgad
Elhossieni, and John Does #1-10, Case No: 1:16-cv-06258 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 7, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants owned and operated a restaurant in Manhattan.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David Stein, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 563-9884
     E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


BAYLOR COLLEGE: Ohakweh, et al. Seek Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. Baylor College of Medicine, Harris County Hospital
District, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00903 (S.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class consisting
of:

     a. "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
        the United States and by persons or entities acting under
        the color of law";

     b. "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 the
        wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the course
        of providing health care services in the United States";
        and

     c. "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 the United States,
        and the wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in
        the course of providing health care services in the
        United States".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fhv7FcMt

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Esq.
          ADIMORA LAW FIRM
          5100 Westheimer Rd, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 940 5170
          E-mail: Ernest@adimoralaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ebon Swofford, Esq.
          L. Sara Thomas, Esq.
          HARRIS HEALTH
          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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


BAYSIDE RECOVERY: Faces "McDonald" Suit in S.D. of Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Bayside Recovery Service, Inc.
The case is captioned Eddie McDonald, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bayside Recovery
Service, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00436 (S.D. Ala.,
Aug. 15, 2016).

Bayside Recovery is a collection agency firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road No. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


BECTON DICKINSON: Opposed Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and 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 BD has opposed
Plaintiffs' request to file an amended complaint.

On July 17, 2015, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia. The plaintiffs, Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority,
trading as Southeast Georgia Health System, and Southeast Georgia
Health System, Inc., seek to represent a class of acute care
purchasers of BD syringes and IV catheters. The complaint alleges
that BD monopolized the markets for syringes and IV catheters
through contracts, theft of technology, false advertising,
acquisitions, and other conduct. The complaint seeks treble
damages but does not specify the amount of alleged damages.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted on January 29, 2016. Plaintiffs have sought to file an
amended complaint, which BD has opposed.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of
the suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous
defense of each of these matters.


BETTER PLANET: "Morales" Asserts False Ad Over Acure(R) Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOCELYN MORALES and JANE DOES 1-100, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. BETTER PLANET BRANDS, LLC d/b/a
ACURE ORGANICS, Case No. 1:16-cv-06464 (S.D.N.Y., August 15,
2016), is a consumer protection class action arising out of the
Defendant's alleged deceptive practices in the marketing,
advertising, and promotion of their 8.0 fluid ounce and 24.0 fluid
ounce Acure(R) repairing shampoo and conditioner products.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's hair repair claims are
false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public
because there are no ingredients in the Products that could
actually repair hair damage.

Better Planet Brands, LLC, doing business as Acure Organics, is a
Florida domestic corporation headquartered in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.  The Company develops, manufactures, distributes, markets
and sells personal care and beauty products throughout the 50
states and the District of Columbia.  The Company manufactures,
markets, and sells hair care products, including the Products, as
part of Acure Organics brand.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


BOGOPA INC: "Bong" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Bong Chul Kim, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Bogopa, Inc. d/b/a Food Bazaar
Supermarkets and Food Dimensions and Bogopa Service Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 513703/2016 (N.Y. Sup., August 8, 2016),
seeks overtime pay and damages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, equitable relief, reinstatement,
compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and front pay
including all benefits, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
further relief pursuant to New York Labor Laws.

Bogopa Services Corp. operates full-service supermarkets
specializing in fresh produce and meat products where Plaintiff
worked as a produce clerk.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil M. Frank, Esq.,
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      500 Bi-County Blvd., Suite 465
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Tel: (631) 756-0400
      Fax: (631) 756-0547
      Email: NFrank@laborlaws.com


BREATHLESS INC: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Moon" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alissa Moon filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Alissa Moon, et al. v. Breathless Inc., Case No.
2-15-cv-6297, in U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as Alissa Moon, et al. v.
Breathless Inc., Case No. 16-3356, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Alissa Moon, Yasmeen Davis, and all others similarly-situated
brought a lawsuit against the Defendant for allegedly violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey's Wage Payment Law and
Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendant operates night clubs and is doing business as
"Breathless Men's Club" in Rahway, New Jersey.

In July 2016, the District Court granted Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, saying Plaintiff's claims are subject to a valid
arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff-Appellant Alissa Moon and Plaintiff-Appellee Yasmeen
Davis are represented by:

          Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
          SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 925-8200
          E-mail: jabay@sackslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Breathless Inc, AKA Vision Food & Spirits, DBA
Breathless Mens Club, is represented by:

          Marc J. Gross, Esq.
          GREENBAUM ROWE SMITH & DAVIS LLP
          75 Livingston Avenue, Suite 301
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 577-1810
          Facsimile: (973) 577-1811
          E-mail: mgross@greenbaumlaw.com

               - and -

          Justin P. Kolbenschlag, Esq.
          GREENBAUM ROWE SMITH & DAVIS
          99 Wood Avenue South
          Iselin, NJ 08830
          Telephone: (732) 549-5600
          Facsimile: (732) 549-1881
          E-mail: jkolbenschlag@greenbaumlaw.com


BUREAUS INVESTMENTS: Sued Over "Violation" of Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated v. BUREAUS INVESTMENTS GROUP LLC, Case No: DC-16-08579,
filed in the Judicial District Courts in Dallas County, Texas on
July 18, 2016, alleges that judgments were obtained by the
Defendant by filing debt collection lawsuits against Plaintiff in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

BUREAUS INVESTMENTS GROUP LLC is a "debt buyer" and/or "debt
collector" engaged in the business of filing consumer debt
collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the
alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors
in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ross Teter, Esq.
     TETER LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 815823
     Dallas, TX 75381-5823
     Phone: (214) 850-8095
     Fax: (972) 243-2510
     E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition Due Aug. 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine 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's
motion to dismiss a federal securities class action is underway.

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

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

On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as
lead plaintiff.  On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the
motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff.  On May 6,
2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations and claims
substantially identical to those of the Kinney Complaint was filed
in the consolidated action.  The putative class period in the
Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12, 2014 to November 5,
2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint on June 17, 2016. Plaintiffs' opposition was
filed July 29, 2016, and Defendants' reply is due August 26, 2016.
The Company has not recorded any liability as of June 30, 2016
since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable
given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.


CFLP INTERESTS: Sued in Tex. Over Debt Collection Act "Violation"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated v. CFLP INTERESTS LLC, DC-16-08586, filed in the Judicial
District Courts in Dallas County, Texas on July 18, 2016, alleges
that judgments were obtained by the Defendant by filing debt
collection lawsuits against Plaintiff in violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

CFLP INTERESTS LLC is a "debt buyer" and/or "debt collector"
engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection
lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged
assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in
interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ross Teter, Esq.
     TETER LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 815823
     Dallas, TX 75381-5823
     Phone: (214) 850-8095
     Fax: (972) 243-2510
     E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


CHANNELADVISOR CORP: 4th Cir. Appeal Over Case Dismissal Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ChannelAdvisor 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 plaintiff's appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remains pending.

The Company said, "In January 2015, two purorted class action
complaints were filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws against a group of defendants including us and
certain of our current executive officers. The consolidated case
was dismissed April 6, 2016, and on April 29, 2016, the plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit."

The district court case is captioned In re CHANNELADVISOR CORP.
Securities Litigation, No. 5:15-CV-00307-F (E.D.N.C.).  Judge
James C. Fox's April 6, 2016 order is available at
http://is.gd/OAMFU6from Leagle.com.

Justin Dice, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke Albert Howard,
Howard Law, PLLC, Jacob A. Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
-- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., James A. Roberts, III --
jar@lewis-roberts.com -- Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, Laurence M. Rosen
-- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA, pro hac vice,
Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. &
Erica Lauren Stone -- estone@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A..

David A. Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke Albert Howard,
Howard Law, PLLC, Francis Paul McConville, Pomerantz LLP, James A.
Roberts, III, Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Patrick Vincent
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Channeladvisor Corporation, Scot Wingo, David Spitz, John Baule,
Defendant, represented by Clifton L. Brinson --
cbrinson@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP, Donald H. Tucker, Jr. -- dtucker@smithlaw.com --
Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Lyle
Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice, Dana
Moss -- dmoss@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice & George E.
Anhang -- ganhang@colley.com -- COOLEY LLP.

"This case and additional litigation, if instituted against us,
could cause us to incur substantial costs and divert management's
attention and resources from our business," the Company said.


CITIZEN EMPLOYEE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Sanchez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Soto Sanchez v. Citizen Employee Leasing, LLC, Case No.
4:16-cv-00540-DCB (D. Ariz., August 15, 2016), is brought against
CEL for its alleged deliberate failure to pay its employees earned
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

CEL is an Arizona limited liability company headquartered in
Nogales, Arizona.  The Company is in the business of leasing
employees, including the Plaintiff and others, to other companies
to perform services.

Between approximately November 2005 through March 2016, CEL
assigned the Plaintiff to provide driving services for MTD
Southwest, Inc., a worldwide leader of outdoor power equipment
with facilities in Europe, North America, Asia and Australia,
producing equipment for both residential and commercial markets,
including distribution of products throughout South America.

At all relevant times, the Defendant had a contract with MTD,
which leased the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
to MTD.  Under the contract, the Plaintiff provided driving
services, among other duties, to MTD.  MTD paid the Defendant for
the Plaintiff's hourly rate but failed to pay the Plaintiff and
others overtime for the time worked over 40 hours a week,
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Awerkamp, Esq.
          Ivelisse Bonilla, Esq.
          Shannon Giles, Esq.
          AWERKAMP & BONILLA, PLC
          6891 N. Oracle Rd., Suite 155
          Tucson, AZ 85704-4287
          Telephone: (520) 798-5282
          E-mail: da@abdilaw.com
                  ib@abdilaw.com
                  sg@abdilaw.com


CONCORDIA INT'L: Has Made False & Misleading Reports, Meyer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MEYER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL CORP., MARK THOMPSON, and
ADRIAN DE SALDANHA, Case No. 1:16-cv-06467 (S.D.N.Y., August 15,
2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose that, among other things, the
Company was experiencing a substantial increase in market
competition against its drug, Donnatal, and other products.

The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons and
entities that acquired Concordia securities between November 12,
2015, and August 12, 2016, inclusive, against the Defendants,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Concordia is an Ontario, Canada corporation headquartered in
Ontario L6J, Canada.  Concordia is a specialty pharmaceutical
company that purportedly owns a portfolio of branded and generic
prescription products which are sold to wholesalers, hospitals and
pharmacies in over 100 countries.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

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


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Appeal of "Hybrid" Class Ruling Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, 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's
appeal of the class certification of a "hybrid" class remains
pending.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on
behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company.
The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post-
production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the proposed class.

On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did
not add any substantive claims, but sought a "hybrid class action"
in which they sought certification of certain claims for
injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class
certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that
modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma
production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to
the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate "issues"
for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right
to seek a further class certification of money damages in the
future. The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and
the motions for class certification denying the allegations and
raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to
each of the claims and filings.

Certain discovery was undertaken and the "hybrid" motion was
briefed by plaintiffs and the Company. A hearing on the "hybrid"
class certification was held on June 1st and 2nd, 2015. On June
11, 2015, the trial court certified a "hybrid" class as requested
by plaintiffs.

The Company has appealed the trial court's class certification
order, which will be reviewed de novo by the appellate court. The
appeal briefing is complete and ready for determination by the
court. An unsuccessful mediation was conducted on December 7,
2015.

The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter.

Although not currently at issue in the "hybrid" certification,
plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million
that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the
passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of
interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that
the case meets the requirements for a class action and is
vigorously defending the case. The Company will continue to assert
its defenses to the case as certified as well as any future
attempt to certify a money damages class.

Continental Resources, Inc. is an independent crude oil and
natural gas company engaged in the exploration, development and
production of crude oil and natural gas.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Oct. 7 Hearing Set to Approve Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP and Crestwood Midstream Partners LP
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 hearing is scheduled for October 7,
2016 regarding the plaintiff's motion to approve the settlement of
the simplification merger lawsuits.

On May 20, 2015, Lawrence G. Farber, a purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of
the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class action on
behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Lawrence G.
Farber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, Crestwood Midstream
GP LLC, Robert G. Phillips, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France,
Philip D. Gettig, Warren H. Gfellar, David Lumpkins, John J.
Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood
Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC, MGP GP, LLC, Crestwood Midstream
Holdings LP, and Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC. This complaint
alleges, among other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general
partner breached its fiduciary duties, certain individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due
care, and that other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.

On July 21, 2015, Isaac Aron, another purported unitholder of the
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of
the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class action on
behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Isaac Aron,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Robert G. Phillps, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D.
Getting, Warren H. Gfeller, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David
Wood, Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP Crestwood Midstream
Holdings LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Crestwood Gas Services
GP, LLC, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC,
CEQP ST Sub LLC and MGP GP, LLC. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general partner and
certain individual defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 by filing an
alleged incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement
with the SEC.

On August 12, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate
the Farber and Aron cases, which the court granted on September 4,
2015. Farber subsequently dismissed his claims against all the
defendants on September 16, 2015. Aron filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and requested an expedited preliminary
injunction hearing, which had been scheduled for September 23,
2015. On September 22, 2015, however, the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed
settlement of the Aron lawsuit. The settlement contemplated by the
MOU is subject to a number of conditions, including notice to the
class, limited confirmatory discovery and final court approval of
the settlement. A hearing is scheduled for October 7, 2016
regarding the plaintiff's motion to approve the settlement. The
anticipated settlement of the MOU has not and will not have a
material impact to our consolidated financial statements.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Pre-1972 Recordings Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media 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
evaluating the Pre-1972 Recordings suit, and intends to defend
itself vigorously.

The Company said, "In August 2015, we were named as a defendant in
two separate putative class action lawsuits relating to our use
and public performance of certain sound recordings fixed prior to
February 15, 1972 (the "Pre-1972 Recordings"). The first suit, ABS
Entertainment, Inc., et. al. v, Cumulus Media Inc., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California and alleges, among other things, copyright infringement
under California state law, common law conversion,
misappropriation and unfair business practices. On December 11,
2015, this suit was dismissed without prejudice."

"The second suit, ABS Entertainment, Inc., v. Cumulus Media Inc.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and alleges, among other things, common law
copyright infringement and unfair competition. The New York
lawsuit has been stayed pending an appeal before the Second
Circuit involving unrelated third-parties over whether the owner
of a Pre-1972 Recording holds an exclusive right to publicly
perform that recording under New York common law.

"The pending suit seeks unspecified damages. The Company is
evaluating the suit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. The
Company is not yet able to determine what effect the lawsuit will
have, if any, on its financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Sentosa" Suit Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sentosa I LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-
16-09925 (D. Tex., August 15, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at
least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rhett Warren, Esq.
      THE WARREN FIRM, PLLC
      4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (972) 885-0852
      Facsimile: (972) 525-2321
      E-mail: rhett@thewarrenfirm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: McGuire Family Suit Alleges Misappraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
Mcguire Family Taraval Property, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Dallas Central
Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-09561, (S.D. Tex.,
August 8, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs
and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief
for violation of the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff owns/operates of real property and improvements located
in Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed on the
property by the District represents a value in excess of fair
market value for tax year 2016.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas
75247-6195.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      Email: Mike@langlawlx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Meadow Creek Suit Alleges Misappraisal
------------------------------------------------------
Meadow Creek Square SC Ltd., Plaintiff, v. Dallas Central
Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-09568, (S.D. Tex.,
August 8, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs
and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief
for violation of the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff owns/operates of real property and improvements company
located in Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed
on the property by the District represents a value in excess of
fair market value for tax year 2016.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas
75247-6195.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James D. Hannagan, Esq.
      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             itobin@gpd.com
             ihannagan@epd.com


DRUG DEPOT: Fauley's Placeholder Motion for Class Cert. Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Virginia M. Kendall entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned Shaun Fauley, the Plaintiff, v. Drug Depot, Inc. et al.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-10735 (N.D. Ill.), dismissing
Fauley's "placeholder" motion for class certification as moot in
light of a ruling in Chapman v. First Index Inc., 796 F. 3d 783
(7th Cir. 2015).

The Seventh Circuit overruled Damasco "and similar decisions to
the extent they [held] that a defendant's offer of full
compensation moots the litigation or otherwise ends the Article
III case or controversy." Chapman, 796 F.3d at 787. The Supreme
Court, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016),
as revised (Feb. 9, 2016), approved of Chapman and decisions
similar to it, holding that "[i]n sum, an unaccepted settlement
offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case, so
the District Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate
[Plaintiff's] complaint."

Judge Kendall finds it inappropriate to allow Defendant to tender
payment to the class representative on his individual claims, over
Plaintiff's objection, to presumably incapacitate the class action
before Plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to show that
certification is warranted. Indeed, Fauley acknowledges this glut
of authority in his Reply.

Class discovery may continue and Fauley must file a substantive
motion for class certification by October 31, 2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iS7IFNcc


DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Price Reporting Suits Being Finalized
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy 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 settlement of the class
action lawsuits related to price reporting is being finalized.

Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), a non-operating
Duke Energy affiliate, was a defendant, along with numerous other
energy companies, in four class action lawsuits and a fifth
single-plaintiff lawsuit pending in a consolidated federal court
proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contains similar
claims that defendants allegedly manipulated natural gas markets
by various means, including providing false information to natural
gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and
agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective
states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle
all of the pending lawsuits. Settlement of the single-plaintiff
settlement was finalized and paid in March 2016. Settlement of the
class action lawsuits are currently being finalized and will be
subject to court approval. The settlement amounts are not material
to Duke Energy.


DUKE ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Florida Customers Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy 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 motions filed by
Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) to
dismiss a class action complaint remains pending.

On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative
class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in Florida. The
suit alleges the State of Florida's nuclear power plant cost
recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by
federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of
all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a
result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future
charges under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS
has been challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on
alternative grounds. Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to
dismiss the complaint on May 5, 2016. Duke Energy Florida cannot
predict the outcome of this matter.


DUKE ENERGY: Antitrust Suit Settlement Approved
-----------------------------------------------
Duke Energy 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 Court has approved
the settlement agreement in the antitrust lawsuit involving Duke
Energy Ohio.

In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial
and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio
in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs
alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and
unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by
entering into nonpublic option agreements in exchange for their
withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization
Plan implemented in early 2005.

In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class
action. Plaintiffs alleged claims of antitrust violations under
the federal Robinson Patman Act as well as fraud and conspiracy
allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act.

During 2015, the parties received preliminary court approval of a
settlement agreement. Duke Energy Ohio included a litigation
reserve of $81 million in Other within Current Liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2015. Duke Energy Ohio
recognized pretax charges of $71 million and $81 million in (Loss)
Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively. The
settlement agreement was approved at a federal court hearing on
April 19, 2016.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing in Scranton Case Appeal Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial 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 briefing is
scheduled to continue through 2016 in the appeal in the class
action filed by John Scranton.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been
deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of
Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13,
2013.

The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint were
granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted leave
to amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March
11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the
second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained
the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second
amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10,
2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on
December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior
Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on
all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in
the Company's favor on April 8, 2015.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27, 2015. Briefing is
scheduled to continue through 2016. The Company will continue to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Ty Rayner Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
*TRADE Financial 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 a putative class
action was filed on March 26, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California by Ty Rayner, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE
Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as defendants. The
complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and
unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its
customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and
attorneys' fees. By stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend
indefinitely the due date for a response to the claim.

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


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Craig L. Schwab Files Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial 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 a putative class
action was filed on July 23, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by Craig L. Schwab, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE Financial
Corporation, E*TRADE Securities LLC, Paul Idzik and David Herbert
as defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE violated federal
securities laws in connection with the routing of its customers'
orders to various market-makers and exchanges. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement
of payments received by the Company, and attorneys' fees. The
complaint has not been served. The Company will continue to defend
itself vigorously in these matters.

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


ENCORE CAPITAL: 6th Circuit Affirms Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, 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 United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the district court's
October 14, 2014 ruling approving a class action settlement.

On May 19, 2008, an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, in which
the plaintiff filed a class action counter-claim against two of
the Company's subsidiaries (the "Midland Defendants"). The
complaint alleged that the Midland Defendants' business practices
violated consumers' rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act.

The Company has vigorously denied the claims asserted against it
in these matters, but has agreed to a proposed settlement to avoid
the burden and expense of continued litigation. Subject to court
approval, settlement awards to eligible class members, as well as
fees and costs, will be paid from a settlement fund of
approximately $5.2 million, which has already been paid by the
Company and its insurer. If the number of class members who make
claims exceeds a certain level, the total settlement could
increase to an amount not to exceed $5.7 million.

On October 14, 2014, the district court issued an order granting
final approval of the parties' revised agreed upon settlement of
this lawsuit. That order was appealed by an objector to the
settlement, and on July 7, 2016, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's
October 14, 2014 ruling.


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Faces "Shishmanian" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIKA SHISHMANIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ENCORE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-06015 (C.D. Cal., August 11, 2016), accuses the Defendant
of violating the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibit
debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair
practices.

Encore Receivable Management, Inc., is a company engaged, by use
of the mails and telephone, in the business of collecting debts.
The Company regularly attempts to collect debts alleged to be due
another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


ERIN CAPITAL: Sued in Tex. Over Debt Collection Act "Violation"
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ERIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, DC-16-08580, filed in the
Judicial District Courts in Dallas County, Texas on July 18, 2016,
alleges that judgments were obtained by the Defendant by filing
debt collection lawsuits against Plaintiff in violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

BUREAUS INVESTMENTS GROUP LLC is a "debt buyer" and/or "debt
collector" engaged in the business of filing consumer debt
collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the
alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors
in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ross Teter, Esq.
     TETER LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 815823
     Dallas, TX 75381-5823
     Phone: (214) 850-8095
     Fax: (972) 243-2510
     E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Rosbottom" Suit in D.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions
Inc. The case is styled David Rosbottom, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Experian
Information Solutions Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-02832-
TLW (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2016). The assigned Chief Judge is Hon.
Terry L Wooten.

Experian Information, an information services company, provides
information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations
and consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVID MAXFIELD LAW OFFICE
          5217 N Trenholm Road, Suite B
          Columbia, SC 29206
          Telephone: (803) 509 6800
          E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com


FIRST STUDENT: Suit in Ohio Seeks Back Pay Under Federal Law
------------------------------------------------------------
EDDY MURPHY JR., BRITTANY VIMPENY, BRENDA BROWN, LAKESHIA GOODWIN,
TANESHA JACKSON, BONNIE ARNOLD, STEPHANIE CARMACK, RITA FERGUSON
,EDWARD FERGUSON, BRYON HENDON, MARIE FOX, LISA DAVIS, LISA ROSE,
LINDA BANSEK, PATRICIA LENZ, BOBBI SALAS, JEROME LAVENDER, JANICE
CARTER, VANESSA HAYES, DARIUS BROWN, JEFF WALLACE, MARGARET JOLLY,
MARY CROSBY, ELLA MCCLEOD, DIANE WILLIAMS, MARCIA MCCLAIN, LINDA
DENNIS, PAMELA SANDIDGE, JAN JONES, TERRY WILBRAHAM, MICHELLE
MOSES, VEVERLY FARMER, LINDA THOMAS, TOSHA CLEMOND, LASHAWNA
JONES, LOLITA VASON, DAVEDA HUGGINS, MICHAEL BANKS, CORAZON
POWELL, DEBBIE JEFFERSON, KIM PHELPS, WAYNE DODSON SR., DARRYL
THOMPSON, NESHONDA TIDMORE, LATRICE HILL, PRINCILLA PEEPLE,
VICTORIA HARRIS, JEFFREY PARKS II, BERTHA HILL, VERNA WHITHER,
RODNEY MCCALLUM JR., LISA TRAMSAK, MATTIE MCDUFFIE, FELICIA ORR,
DEMETRICE EVANS, D'AZIAH PEARSALL, MARCHELL IVORY, DARLENE COLVIN,
DARREN FORD, CHARDE COLE, SHERIE WEST, WANDA GREEN, SHIRLEY
REMBERT, HEATHER MOWERY, HOLLY SCHAAB, ELIZABETH CURBELO-ROBLES,
and other individuals similarly situated, v. FIRST STUDENT
MANAGEMENT LLC and FIRST STUDENT, INC., Case No: 1:16-cv-01966
(N.D. Ohio, August 5, 2016), asks the Court to require defendants
to pay back wages allegedly owed to them and the proposed
plaintiff classes, as well as wages which defendants failed to pay
pursuant to state and Federal law.

First Student Management LLC operates a bus yard.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Nacht, Esq.
     NACHTLAW, P.C.
     One Seagate, Suite 685
     Toledo, OH 43604
     Phone: (734) 663-7550
     Fax: (734) 663-7592
     E-mail: dnacht@nachtlaw.com

        - and -

     Patrick Cronin, Esq.
     Steve Berkowitz, Esq.
     CRONIN AND BERKOWITZ
     10000 Lincoln Drive, Suite 202
     Marlton, NJ 08054
     Phone: (856) 857-1776
     E-mail: ptc@croninandberkowitz.com
             sberkowitz@berkpc.com


FORESITE REALTY: Faces "Gibbs" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GIBBS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. FORESITE REALTY PARTNERS, L.L.C., Case No: 1:16-cv-01145-DDD-
JPM (W.D. La., August 5, 2016),  alleges violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by forcing employees to work a substantial amount of
overtime without properly paying all compensation due, thus
depriving them of rightful compensation for their work that
Foresite is legally obligated to pay.

Foresite Realty Partners, L.L.C., is a commercial real estate and
property management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Barrett Beasley, Esq.
     SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
     1901 Texas Street
     Natchitoches, LA 71457
     Phone: (318) 352-5999
     Fax: (318) 352-5998
     E-mail: bbeasley@salim-beasley.com

        - and -

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


FORMFACTOR INC: Settlement of Shareholders' Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, 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 settlement remains
pending in a class action lawsuit by shareholders of Cascade
Microtech.

On March 8, 2016, an individual plaintiff filed a putative class
action lawsuit on behalf of Cascade Microtech's shareholders
against Cascade Microtech, its directors, FormFactor and Cascade
Merger Sub, in connection with Cascade Microtech and FormFactor
entering into a merger agreement. The lawsuit, captioned Lum v.
Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., No. 16CV07293, was filed in
Washington County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon.

On April 8, 2016, another individual plaintiff filed a similar
putative class action lawsuit against the same defendants. The
lawsuit, captioned Solak v. Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., No.
16CV11809, was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in the
State of Oregon.

On April 20, 2016, the Lum lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice
at the request of the plaintiff. The litigation proceeds in
Multnomah County Circuit Court with the Solak complaint as the
operative complaint. The Solak lawsuit alleges that the individual
members of Cascade Microtech's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to Cascade Microtech's shareholders by
approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration;
approving the merger to obtain unique benefits not shared equally
with Cascade Microtech's other shareholders; failing to take steps
to maximize the value paid to Cascade Microtech shareholders;
failing to take steps to ensure a fair process leading up to the
proposed merger; and agreeing to preclusive deal protection
devices in the merger agreement. The lawsuit also alleges claims
against FormFactor and one of its subsidiaries for aiding and
abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
individual members of Cascade Microtech's board of directors. In
the Solak lawsuit, the plaintiff has sought, among other things,
rescission of the merger, plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs,
and other relief.

Under a memorandum of understanding signed by the parties and
filed with the court in the Solak case, Cascade Microtech and
FormFactor agreed with the plaintiff's counsel to supplement the
disclosures made in connection with the merger. The supplemental
disclosures were made on June 14, 2016.

Under the memorandum of understanding, the parties to the Solak
lawsuit agreed to use their collective best efforts to obtain
final approval of the proposed settlement and the dismissal of the
Solak litigation with prejudice. Subject to completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiff, the memorandum
of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Cascade Microtech's former shareholders within
the proposed class.

As stated in the memorandum of understanding, if the settlement is
finally approved by the Oregon court, the parties anticipate that
it will resolve and release all claims in the Solak lawsuit
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Cascade Microtech
shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiff's counsel in the Solak lawsuit will
file a petition in the Oregon court for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses. Cascade Microtech will pay any attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded by the Oregon court. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Oregon court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


FORMFACTOR INC: Merits Discovery Underway in Employee's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, 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 class action lawsuit
by a former employee is proceeding to merits discovery.

In August 2013, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, alleging
violations of California's wage and hour laws and unfair business
practices on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
current and former employees at the Company's Livermore facilities
from August 21, 2009, to the present. On January 4, 2016, the
court certified the plaintiff class. The lawsuit is currently
proceeding to notice to class members and merits discovery.

The Company denies the allegations contained in the lawsuit, and,
based on available information, believes it has significant
defenses to the allegations of the lawsuit. The Company currently
believes that any settlement reached would be an amount that is
not material to the Company's financial statements. If the matter
is not settled, the Company could incur material attorneys' fees
in defending the lawsuit.


FOX RESTAURANT: Faces "Dayton" Suit Seeking Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB A. DAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FOX RESTAURANT VENTURE, LLC d/b/a JIMMY
JOHN'S, FOX NC ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a JIMMY JOHN'S and FOX SC
ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a JIMMY JOHN'S, Case No: 1:16-cv-02109-SEB-
MJD (S.D. Ind., August 5, 2016), is a lawsuit under the Fair Labor
Standards Act seeking to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages
caused by Jimmy John's improper application of the FLSA's tip
credit to its delivery drivers.

Defendants are a franchise owning and operating between 20 and 30
Jimmy John's sandwich restaurants in Indiana and a number of other
states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert P. Kondras Jr., Esq.
     HUNT, HASSLER, KONDRAS & MILLER LLP
     100 Cherry St.
     Terre Haute, IN 47807
     Phone: (812) 232-9691
     E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net

        - and -

     Brian R. Drummy, Esq.
     BUNGER & ROBERTSON
     226 South College Avenue
     Bloomington, IN 47404
     Phone: (812) 332-9295
     E-mail: bdrummy@lawbr.com


GERON CORP: Still Defends California Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Geron 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 a class action securities lawsuit in California.

The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported class action
securities lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, or the California
District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our
officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of
imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or
polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence
of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities
observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients
and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term
exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees."

"On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on
June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class
action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District
Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These
lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the
purported class action securities lawsuit that commenced on March
14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both
of the purported class action securities lawsuits filed in the
California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the
purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court
ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended
complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on
September 19, 2014. On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to
transfer the securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District
Court to the California District Court. On November 4, 2014, the
Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the
case to the California District Court, which was thereafter
consolidated with the Class Action Lawsuits. We filed our motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 18,
2014.

"On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our
motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss
with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements
made by us. On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the
consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits.

"It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or
allegations will be made by stockholders, with respect to these
same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and
directors as defendants. We believe we have meritorious defenses
and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously."


GREAT PLAINS ENERGY: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Great Plains Energy Incorporated and Kansas City Power & Light
Company 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 motion for preliminary
injunction is pending in the putative class action brought in
Jackson County, Missouri.

On May 29, 2016, Great Plains Energy entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) by and among Great Plains
Energy, Westar, and, from and after its accession to the Merger
Agreement, GP Star, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Great
Plains Energy in the State of Kansas (Merger Sub).

According to a Reuters report, Great Plains, the parent of
regulated power utility Kansas City Power & Light, will buy rival
Westar Energy for $8.6 billion.  Great Plains said in a press
statement early this month that the Company continues to make
progress on the Westar acquisition. The Company recently made
several required regulatory filings and is on track to close the
transaction in the spring of 2017.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, two putative
class action complaints (which were subsequently consolidated) and
one putative derivative action complaint challenging the merger
were filed on behalf of a putative class of Westar shareholders in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas.

A separate putative class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, at Kansas City,
Sixteenth Judicial District on behalf of a putative class of Great
Plains Energy shareholders.

The consolidated and amended putative class action complaint
brought in Shawnee County, Kansas name as defendants Westar, the
members of the Westar Board and Great Plains Energy. The putative
class action complaint brought in Jackson County, Missouri names
as defendants Great Plains Energy and the members of the Great
Plains Energy Board.

The putative derivative action complaint names as defendants the
members of the Westar Board and Great Plains Energy, with Westar
named as a nominal defendant. The consolidated and amended
complaint brought in Shawnee County, Kansas asserts that the
members of the Westar Board breached their fiduciary duties to
Westar shareholders in connection with the proposed merger,
including the duty of candor, and that Westar and Great Plains
Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.

The putative derivative complaint filed in Shawnee County, Kansas
asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims against members of the
Westar Board, and aiding and abetting claims against Great Plains
Energy, on behalf of nominal defendant Westar. The complaint
brought in Jackson County, Missouri asserts that the members of
the Great Plains Energy Board breached their fiduciary duty of
candor in connection with the proposed merger by allegedly failing
to disclose certain facts in the Company's preliminary Form S-4.
Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in each case seek to enjoin
the merger and rescind the merger agreement, in addition to
reimbursement of costs.

Currently there is a motion for preliminary injunction on file in
the putative class action brought in Jackson County, Missouri. The
defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in each
of the putative class action lawsuits are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against such claims. The defendants intend to
seek dismissal of the putative derivative action complaint.


GUARDIAN PROTECTION: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Danganan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jobe Danganan filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Jobe Danganan v. Guardian Protection, Case No. 2-
15-cv-01495, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Jobe Danganan v. Guardian
Protection, Case No. 16-3379, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 155
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 647-6067

               - and -

          James M. Pietz, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 288-4333
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jpietz@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          Christian X. Schreiber, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: christian@chavezgertler.com

Defendant-Appellee GUARDIAN PROTECTION is represented by:

          Amy J. Coles, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          500 Grant Street, Suite 2900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 515-1528
          Facsimile: (844) 368-4326
          E-mail: AColes@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Iannucci, Esq.
          Will J. Rosenzweig, Esq.
          Laura E. Vendzules, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          130 North 18th Street
          One Logan Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-5543
          E-mail: Iannucci@BlankRome.com
                  rosenzweig@blankrome.com
                  lvendzules@blankrome.com


HENRY SCHEIN: Defending Class Suits Over Dental Supplies
--------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits
related to dental supplies or equipment prices, the 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.

Beginning in January 2016, class action complaints were filed
against Patterson Companies, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co. and
Henry Schein, Inc. Each of these complaints allege, among other
things, that defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate
customers and foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers,
state dental associations and others that deal with defendants'
competitors.  Subject to certain exclusions, these classes seek to
represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment
in the United States directly from any of the defendants or
Burkhart Dental Supply Co. since August 31, 2008.  Each class
action complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble
damages, jointly and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these actions,"
the Company said.


HSBC FINANCE: "Jaffe" Deal Awaits Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance 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 in the case, Jaffe v.
Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893),
HSBC Finance agreed in June 2016 to pay $1,575 million to settle
all claims. The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement in June 2016 and final approval remains pending. The
payment was made to an escrow account in July 2016 and will be
held until final approval of the settlement.


HSBC FINANCE: Anticipates Parties to Review in Credit Card Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance 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 in June 2016, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating
class certification and approval of the class settlement in In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720 (E.D.N.Y.), concluding the class was
inadequately represented by their counsel in violation the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure governing class actions as well as the Due
Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Specifically, the Court held that there was a conflict between two
different but overlapping settlement classes: (1) a so-called opt-
out class, which permitted individual class members to forgo their
share of the monetary relief and pursue individual claims; and (2)
a non-opt-out class of merchants, including future merchants that
do not currently exist, which provided injunctive relief mainly in
the form of a rule change by Visa and MasterCard to allow
merchants to surcharge card transactions until July 20, 2021.

"We anticipate that the parties will seek further review of the
decision," the Company said.


HSBC FINANCE: Responded to "Monteleone" TCPA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance 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 HSBC defendants
responded to the complaint in the Monteleone v. HSBC Finance
Corporation, et al. litigation in July 2016. This action is at an
early stage.


HSBC USA: Benchmark Rate Litigation in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 case, encaptioned
Frontpoint Asian Event Driven Fund, L.P., et al. v Citibank, N.A.,
et al. (Case No. 15-cv-05263), is in the early stages.

HSBC Bank USA, HSBC, HSBC USA, HSBC North America and the Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited have been named as
defendants, among others, in a putative class action brought in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of persons who transacted in products tied to the Singapore
Interbank Offering Rate ("SIBOR") or Singapore Swap Offer Rate
("SOR") between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2011.

The complaint, encaptioned Frontpoint Asian Event Driven Fund,
L.P., et al. v Citibank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 15-cv-05263),
alleges that the defendant banks colluded to rig SIBOR and SOR by
collusively making false SIBOR submissions and entering into
collusive transactions directly in the swaps market, thereby
fixing the prices of SIBOR and SOR based derivatives for their
collective financial benefits. The defendants are accused of
illegal restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act,
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), and unjust enrichment. This matter is at a very
early stage.


HSBC USA: Transfer of "Zapata" Case to S.D.N.Y. Sought
------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 June 2016, the HSBC
defendants filed motions to transfer the case, Zapata, et al. v.
HSBC, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York and to dismiss the action based on lack of personal
jurisdiction as to certain defendants.


HSBC USA: Responded to Ahmed and Monteleone Complaints
------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 HSBC defendants
responded to the complaints in the Ahmed v. HSBC Bank USA,
National Association and Monteleone v. HSBC Finance Corporation,
et al. litigations in July 2016. These actions are at early
stages.


HUMANA INC: Shareholder Action in Kentucky Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Humana 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 the shareholder
action remains pending in Kentucky court.

The Company said, "On July 2, 2015, we entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, which we refer to in this report as the Merger
Agreement, with Aetna Inc. and certain wholly owned subsidiaries
of Aetna Inc."

"In connection with the Merger, three putative class action
complaints were filed by purported Humana stockholders challenging
the Merger, two in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky
and one in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The
complaints are captioned Solak v. Broussard et al., Civ. Act. No.
15CI03374 (Kentucky state court), Litwin v. Broussard et al., Civ.
Act. No. 15CI04054 (Kentucky state court) and Scott v. Humana Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 11323-VCL (Delaware state court).

"The complaints named as defendants each member of Humana's board
of directors, Aetna, and, in the case of the Delaware complaint,
Humana. The complaints generally alleged, among other things, that
the individual members of our board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to our stockholders by entering into the
Merger Agreement, approving the mergers as contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, and failing to take steps to maximize the value
of Humana to our stockholders, and that Aetna, and, in the case of
the Delaware complaint, Humana aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties.

"In addition, the complaints alleged that the merger undervalues
Humana, that the process leading up to the execution of the Merger
Agreement was flawed, that the members of our board of directors
improperly placed their own financial interests ahead of those of
our stockholders, and that certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement improperly favor Aetna and impede a potential
alternative transaction. Among other remedies, the complaints
sought equitable relief rescinding the Merger Agreement and
enjoining the defendants from completing the mergers as well as
costs and attorneys' fees. We refer to all these cases
collectively in this report as the Merger Litigation.

"On August 20, 2015, the parties in the Kentucky state cases filed
a stipulation and proposed order with the court to consolidate
these cases into a single action captioned In re Humana Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Civ. Act. No. 15CI03374.

"On October 9, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, we and the other named defendants in the
Merger Litigation signed a memorandum of understanding, which we
refer to as the MOU, to settle the Merger Litigation. Subject to
court approval and further definitive documentation in a
stipulation of settlement that will be subject to customary
conditions, the MOU resolved the claims brought in the Merger
Litigation and provided that we would make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed mergers.

"The MOU further provided for, among other things, dismissal of
the Merger Litigation with prejudice and a release and settlement
by the purported class of our stockholders of all claims against
the defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with
the Merger Agreement and transactions and disclosures related to
the Merger Agreement. The asserted claims will not be released
until such stipulation of settlement receives court approval. The
foregoing terms and conditions will be defined by the stipulation
of settlement, and class members will receive a separate notice
describing the settlement terms and their rights in connection
with the approval of the settlement. In connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will
file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

"We will pay or cause to be paid any court awarded attorneys' fees
and expenses. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that a court
will approve such settlement even if the parties were to enter
into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. Because the MOU
contemplates that the Kentucky court will be asked to approve the
settlement, the plaintiffs have already withdrawn the Delaware
case."


ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Court Narrows Claims in "Tawil" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID TAWIL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS,
INC., and SOUTH/WIN LTD. Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-8747
(FLW) (LHG) (D.N.J.), Judge Freda L. Wolfson granted in part and
denied, in part, the motion filed by the defendants Illinois Tool
Works, Inc., and South/Win Ltd., seeking dismissal of the
complaint filed by David Tawil.

Tawil alleged that the sensor of his car's windshield wiper system
was damaged by the defendants' product, Rain-X windshield washer
fluid, because that product was not compatible with cars that used
continuity prong windshield washer fluid sensors.  The plaintiffs
asserted claims individually, and on behalf of a putative class,
for (1)failure to warn (Count I); and (2)design defect (Count II)
under the New Jersey Products Liability Act (PLA); and
(3)violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA)(Count
III).

Judge Wolfson dismissed Count III of the complaint, alleging
violations of the CFA, because it is subsumed within the
plaintiff's claims under the PLA.  The judge, however, denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the complaint,
based on failure to properly plead the required elements of a
claim against a manufacturer under the components parts doctrine.
The plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was dismissed.

A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's August 10, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/UjZbB3 from Leagle.com.

DAVID TAWIL, Plaintiff, represented by ERIC H. GIBBS --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP, ERIC LECHTZIN --
elechtzin@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. & SHANON J. CARSON --
scarson@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C..

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., SOUTH/WIN LTD., Defendants, represented
by B. JOHN PENDLETON, JR. -- john.pendleton@dlapiper.com -- DLA
PIPER LLP & JAMES VINCENT NOBLETT -- james.noblett@dlapiper.com --
DLA PIPER LLP.


INSMED INCORPORATED: Faces "Hoey" Class Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
Insmed Incorporated 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 class
action lawsuit was filed on July 15, 2016, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and
certain executive officers: Hoey v. Insmed Incorporated, et al.
The complaint includes allegations that, during the class period
between March 18, 2013 and June 8, 2016, the Company and certain
executive officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making
various statements related to the European MAA of ARIKAYCE with
the EMA. The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of the lawsuit.


INSULET CORPORATION: Arkansas Teacher's Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Insulet 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 case, Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345,
remains outstanding.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court,
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current
and former executives of the Company.  Two suits subsequently were
voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-
12345, which remains outstanding, alleges that the Company (and
certain executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the
Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and
April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Due in part to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company
currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of
loss, in connection with this matter.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Accused by Kelly of Breaching Duties Under ERISA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET E. KELLY, KATRINA ALLEN, JEREMIAH M. DALEY, JR., TREVA N.
BONEY, TRACY L. MCCRACKEN, JERRELL BAKER, LOURDES CORDERO and
FRANCINE LAMPROS-KLEIN, individually and as representatives of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Johns
Hopkins University 403(b) Plan v. THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02835-GLR (D. Md., August 11, 2016), is brought
on behalf of the Plan against the Defendant for breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
and to enforce the Defendant's personal liability under the ERISA
to restore to the Plan all losses resulting from each breach of
fiduciary duty.

The Johns Hopkins University 403(b) Plan is a defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan.
Johns Hopkins University is a non-profit corporation organized
under Maryland law with its principal place of business in
Baltimore, Maryland.  The University is the Plan Administrator.

Faculty and staff members of The Johns Hopkins University are
eligible to participate in the Plan, which provides the only
source of retirement income for many employees of the University,
which is based upon deferrals of employee compensation, employer
matching contributions, and performance of investment options net
of fees and expenses.

As of June 30, 2015, the Plan held $4.3 billion in assets and had
24,561 participants with account balances.  As such, it is one of
the largest defined contribution plans in the United States;
ranking in the top 1% of all defined contribution plans based on
total plan assets that filed a Form 5500 with the Department of
Labor.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory P. Care, Esq.
          BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
          120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962-1030
          Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
          E-mail: gpc@browngold.com

               - and -

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
          Stephen M. Hoeplinger, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  mwolff@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
                  shoeplinger@uselaws.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Did Not Pay Proper Overtime, "Nealy" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC NEALY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CLEANING SERVICES, INC., a
Florida Corporation, and PAMELA JOHNSON, an Individual, Case No.
4:16-cv-00506-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., August 11, 2016), alleges that
the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated on a "day rate" basis and
failing to calculate and pay overtime at time-and-one-half of the
Plaintiff's regular rate whenever he, and those similarly
situated, worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.

Johnson & Johnson Cleaning is a Florida for Profit Corporation and
maintained its principal place of business in Leon County,
Florida.  Pamela Johnson is a resident of Leon County.  The
Defendants operate a cleaning and painting company in the state of
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3517
          E-mail: PBotros@forthepeople.com


KEMET CORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Antitrust Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Kemet 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 NEC TOKIN is awaiting
court approval of the settlement in two antitrust suits.

On May 2, 2016, NEC TOKIN reached a preliminary settlement in two
antitrust suits pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California as In re: Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (the "Class Action Suits").
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, in consideration of the
release of NEC TOKIN and its subsidiaries (including NEC TOKIN
America, Inc.) from claims asserted in the Class Action Suits, NEC
TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.3 million to a settlement class of
direct purchasers of capacitors and a settlement class of indirect
purchasers of capacitors. The preliminary settlement was followed
by definitive settlement agreements as of July 15, 2016, with the
same terms as the preliminary settlement except that the initial
installment payment to each class plaintiff is to be made on July
29, 2016, while the terms of the subsequent payments are not
changed from the ones of the preliminary settlement, i.e., due
each year thereafter for three years, and a final, fifth payment
due by December 31, 2019. Both settlements are subject to court
approval.


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "King" Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD B. KING, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., GREGORY P.
MADISON, and SCOTT A. HOLMES, Case No: 1:16-cv-06233 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 5, 2016), was filed on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired Keryx securities between February 25, 2016, and July 29,
2016, both dates inclusive, against the Defendants, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act.

KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on marketing therapies for patients with renal disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Ruling in "Lafollette" Suit to 8th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Eric Lafollette, et
al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, Case No. 2:14-cv-04147-NKL,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri -
Jefferson City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 4,
2016, the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of Liberty Mutual
property insurance policyholders in Missouri whose ACV payments
were reduced for payment of a deductible.  The Class is defined
as:

     "All persons who received an ACV payment, directly or
      indirectly, from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company for
      physical loss or damage to their dwelling or other
      structures located in the state of Missouri arising under
      policy Form HO 03 (Edition 04 91) and endorsements, such
      payments arising from losses that occurred from April 8,
      2004 to the date of class certification, where a deductible
      was applied to the ACV payment for the person's dwelling or
      other structure (Coverage A and/or B)."

Excluded from the Class are: (1) All persons who received a
replacement cost payment from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
Company under Coverage A and/or B; (2) All persons whose
payment(s) plus the amount of any deductible applied was less than
$2,500; (3) Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and its
affiliates, officers, and directors; (4) Members of the judiciary
and their staff to whom this action is assigned; and (5)
Plaintiffs' Counsel.

The appellate case is captioned as Eric Lafollette, et al. v.
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, Case No. 16-8014, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Respondents Eric Lafollette and Camille Lafolette,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Thomas Hays Hearne, Esq.
          HEARNE & PIVAC
          Building C, PMB-91
          2101 W. Chesterfield Boulevard
          Springfield, MO 65807-0000
          Telephone: (417) 883-3399
          Facsimile: (844) 422-9713
          E-mail: thhearne@hplawfirm.org

               - and -

          Derrick Lee Morton, Esq.
          Douglas A. Terry, Esq.
          NELSON & ROSELIUS
          3540 South Boulevard, Suite 300
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 705-3600
          E-mail: morton@ntmdlaw.com
                  terry@ntmdlaw.com

               - and -

          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          STEELMAN & GAUNT
          901 Pine Street
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com

Petitioner-Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Michael L. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Bruce A. Moothart, Esq.
          SEYFERTH & BLUMENTHAL
          4801 Main Street, Suite 310
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 756-0700
          E-mail: mike@sbhlaw.com
                  bruce@sbhlaw.com


LINKEDIN CORP: Badiian & Hoffman Suits Filed Over Microsoft Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
LinkedIn 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 two putative
shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Shahram Badiian v.
Hoffman, et al., Case No. 16CV297883, and Law v. Hoffman, et. Al.,
Case No. 16CV298318, respectively, were filed on July 15, 2016 and
July 28, 2016, in the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara
County against the Company and the members of the Company's Board,
which are referred to as the "individual defendants," as well as
against Microsoft and Liberty Merger Sub Inc., which are referred
to as the "Microsoft defendants."

Both complaints generally allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its
stockholders by, among other things, agreeing to the proposed
merger with the Microsoft defendants at an unfair price and
pursuant to an unfair process. The complaints also allege that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing
the July 1, 2016 preliminary proxy statement and the July 22, 2016
definitive proxy statement to be filed with the SEC with
materially misleading statements and omissions regarding: (i) the
process leading up to the proposed merger, (ii) certain data and
inputs underlying the financial analyses of Qatalyst Partners, the
Company's financial advisor in connection with the proposed
merger, and (iii) the Company's management's and analysts'
financial projections that Qatalyst Partners relied upon in
preparing its financial analyses. The complaints further allege
that the Microsoft defendants aided and abetted the individual
defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek
to preliminarily and/or permanently enjoin the proposed merger
and/or rescind the merger in the event it is consummated, an
accounting for damages against all defendants, and an award of
attorneys' and experts' fees, in addition to other relief. The
Company and the individual defendants believe that the plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.

On June 11, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Microsoft Corporation
("Microsoft") and Liberty Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Microsoft ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement
provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company continuing as the
surviving corporation and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Microsoft. As a result of the Merger, LinkedIn will cease to be a
publicly traded company.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Briefing on Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, 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 Court has called
for Plaintiffs to fully brief any motion for class certification
by February 17, 2017.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia against the Company and its chief executive officer,
chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf
of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014.  The complaint alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the
Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and
operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its share
price, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et
Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially
similar claims but which does not name the chief accounting
officer as a defendant.

On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the
requisite particularity.  On March 31, 2016, the Court granted
that motion in part and denied it in part.

On May 16, 2016, the Company answered the amended complaint, and
on June 7, 2016, the Court entered a scheduling order calling for
Plaintiffs to fully brief any motion for class certification by
February 17, 2017, for fact discovery to be completed by June 30,
2017, and for expert discovery to be completed by December 22,
2017.  The Company believes the allegations in the amended
complaint are without merit and cannot estimate a range of
potential liability, if any, at this time.

Liquidity Services operates a network of e-commerce marketplaces
that enable buyers and sellers to transact in an efficient,
automated environment offering over 500 product categories.


LTD FINANCIAL: Cohen Seeks Review of D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alexis Cohen filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Alexis Cohen v. LTD Financial Services LP, Case No.
3-15-cv-07422, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The appellate case is titled Alexis Cohen v. LTD Financial
Services LP, Case No. 16-3383, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 12,
2016, District Judge Freda L. Wolfson granted the Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Case.  The putative
class action, brought by Ms. Cohen pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act challenges LTD Financial's business
practice with regard to its debt collection letters.  She alleges
that the Defendant engaged in deceptive and unfair practices in
violation of FDCPA by failing to inform her that by choosing
Payment Plan 2 would restart the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff-Appellant ALEXIS COHEN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
                  Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com

Defendant-Appellee LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES LP is represented by:

          Monica M. Littman, Esq.
          Richard J. Perr, Esq.
          FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC
          Ten Penn Center
          1801 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 893-8749
          E-mail: mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com
                  rperr@finemanlawfirm.com


MASIMO CORP: California Suit Remains Stayed Pending FTC Petition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation 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 a California class
action remains stayed pending an appeal of a ruling by the FCC.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition.

On October 30, 2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied
some of the relief requested in the Company's petition. Both
parties appealed the FCC's decision on the petition.

On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties'
joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on
the appeal.

The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.
The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will
ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore,
no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of the date
of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.


MASIMO CORP: Alabama Class Action Appeal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation 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 an appeal in a class
action lawsuit in Alabama remains pending.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial.

On August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the
Company on all claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's decision.
The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will
ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore,
no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of the date
of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.


MDC PARTNERS: Bid to Dismiss North Collier Case Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners 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 motion to dismiss the
class action lawsuit by North Collier Fire Control and Rescue
District Firefighter Pension Plan remains pending.

On July 31, 2015, North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District
Firefighter Pension Plan ("North Collier") filed a putative class
action suit in the Southern District of New York, naming as
defendants MDC, CFO David Doft, former CEO Miles Nadal, and former
CAO Mike Sabatino. On December 11, 2015, North Collier and co-lead
plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association filed an amended
complaint, adding two additional defendants, Mitchell Gendel and
Michael Kirby, a former member of MDC's Board of Directors.  The
plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint violations of Sec.
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Sec. 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, based on allegedly materially false and misleading
statements in the Company's SEC filings and other public
statements regarding executive compensation, goodwill accounting,
and the Company's internal controls.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 9, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to that
motion on April 8, 2016, and the Company filed a reply brief on
May 9, 2016.  The parties are now awaiting a ruling from the Court
on this dismissal motion.  The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend this suit.


MDC PARTNERS: No Case Conference Yet in Canada Suit
---------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners 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 date for an initial
case conference has not yet been set in a class action lawsuit in
Canada.

On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford,
Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming the
following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, former
CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A. LLP.  The
Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the Ontario
Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other Canadian
provinces and territories) as well as common law misrepresentation
based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in
the Company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclose
material facts with respect to the SEC investigation.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this suit.  A
case management judge has now been appointed but a date for an
initial case conference has not yet been set.


MDL 1950: Settlement of Remaining Class Claims Has Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the MDL 1950 Court has
entered an order approving settlement of the remaining class
claims, resolving the putative class action lawsuits relating to
former financial products business.

From 2008 through 2010, complaints were brought on behalf of a
purported class of state, local and municipal government entities
alleging federal antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives
industry, seeking damages and alleging, among other things, a
conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and manipulate bids for,
municipal derivatives, including GICs. These actions were
consolidated before one judge in the Southern District of New York
as MDL 1950. Following motions to dismiss, amended class action
complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs.
The most recently amended, operative class action complaint does
not list AGMH or its affiliates as defendants or co-conspirators.
On July 8, 2016, the MDL 1950 Court entered an order approving
settlement of the remaining class claims, resolving the putative
class case.


MDL 2326: Boston Scientific Still in Talks to Resolve Mesh Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific 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 as of August 1,
2016, over 39,000 product liability cases or claims related to
transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress
urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted
against the Company.

The Company continues to engage in discussions with various
plaintiffs' counsel regarding potential resolution of pending
cases and claims and, as of August 1, 2016, have made substantial
progress in discussions with plaintiffs' counsel representing
approximately 8,000 additional cases and claims.

The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the
United States and include eight putative class actions. There were
also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of four putative
class actions, and fewer than 20 claims in the United Kingdom.
Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with
use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs
assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of
warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and
loss of consortium claims.

Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge
in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases
to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The Company said, "During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received
written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general
offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have
responded to those requests."

"As of August 1, 2016, we have entered into master settlement
agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an
aggregate of approximately 11,000 cases and claims. These master
settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution
of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional
upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds.  Of the 11,000 cases and claims, 6,000
have met the conditions of the settlement and are final.  All
settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of
compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any
liability or wrongdoing.

"In addition, we continue to engage in discussions with various
plaintiffs' counsel regarding potential resolution of pending
cases and claims and, as of August 1, 2016, have made substantial
progress in discussions with plaintiffs' counsel representing
approximately 8,000 additional cases and claims.

"We have established a product liability accrual for known and
estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as
with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against
us and the costs of defense thereof associated with our
transvaginal surgical mesh products.

"While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is
adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as
additional information becomes available. While we continue to
engage in discussions with plaintiffs' counsel regarding potential
resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously
contest the cases and claims asserted against us; that do not
settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain
and could have a material impact on our results of operations,
financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our
transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both
favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that
the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential
outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal
surgical mesh products."


MERITOR INC: Preparing Response to Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
Meritor, 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 3, 2016, that the company is reviewing
the class action complaints and developing its response.

In March 2016, the company was served with a complaint filed
against the company and other defendants in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint
is a proposed class action and alleges that the company violated
federal and state antitrust and other laws in connection with a
former business of the company's that manufactured and sold
exhaust systems for automobiles. The alleged class is comprised of
persons and entities that purchased or leased a passenger vehicle
during a specified time period.

In April, the Company was served with a virtually identical suit
also naming the company as a defendant on behalf of a purported
class of automobile dealers.

The company is reviewing the complaints and developing its
response and intends to vigorously defend the claims. At this
point, the company cannot estimate the ultimate impact on the
company, and there can be no assurance that the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on the consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.


METHODIST HEALTHCARE: Faces "Adams" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ADAMS, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. METHODIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OF SAN ANTONIO, LTD.
D/B/A METHODIST HOSPITAL, METHODIST SPECIALTY AND TRANSPLANT
HOSPITAL, METHODIST STONE OAK HOSPITAL, METHODIST TEXSAN HOSPITAL,
METROPOLITAN METHODIST HOSPITAL, AND NORTHEAST METHODIST HOSPITAL,
Case No: 5:16-cv-00786-XR (W.D. Tex., August 5, 2016), alleges
that Defendants failed to properly compensate non-exempt nurses
for work performed during meal periods in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates a chain of hospitals that provide healthcare
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
     KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com


MIAMI INT'L: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN A. HERNANDEZ, JOSE A. CHAVARRIA, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. MIAMI INTERNATIONAL TRANSIT, INC. and SCOTT LOWREY,
individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-23470-FAM (S.D. Fla., August 11,
2016), is an action to recover money damages for alleged unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Miami Transit is a Florida corporation, having its main place of
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiffs
worked.  Scott Lowrey is a director and owner of Miami Transit.
Miami Transit is a seafood, transportation, logistics, cold
storage and distribution company, which operates in Miami,
Florida.

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


MIDWEST MOVING: "Drake" Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Oct. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Mackenzie Drake, the Plaintiff, v. Midwest
Moving and Storage Inc., et al., the Case No. 1:16-cv-05317 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an order:

     1. continuing Plaintiff's motion for collective action, for
        disclosure of potential opt-in Plaintiffs' contact
        information and approval of Plaintiff's notice to October
        5, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.; and

     2. granting Defendants' oral motion for leave to file a
        responsive pleading to September 19, 2016.

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


MITEL NETWORKS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for October 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mitel Networks 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 Delaware Court of
Chancery has scheduled a hearing for October 12, 2016 to consider
the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In March and April, 2015, we were named a
defendant in three purported stockholder class actions, two of
which have been consolidated, that challenge the acquisition of
Mavenir. Specifically, two stockholder actions challenging the
acquisition of Mavenir -- styled Nakoa v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No.
10757-VCP and Turberg v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10779-VCP -- were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5 and 11, 2015,
respectively."

"On March 23, 2015, the Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating these two complaints under the caption In re Mavenir
Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10757-VCP.
On April 22, 2015, a Mavenir stockholder filed a separate
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled
Isabel S. Rivera Cruz v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et al., C.A.
No. 10936-VCP. The plaintiff in the Cruz action did not effect
service of the complaint on the Company or any other named
defendant. These stockholder complaints alleged, in part, that
Mavenir's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the acquisition of Mavenir, and that we aided and abetted
such alleged fiduciary breaches.

"On September 14, 2015 and January 22, 2016, the lead plaintiff in
the consolidated action filed amended complaints, neither of which
names us as a defendant. The operative complaint in the
consolidated action, filed on January 22, 2016, names our
subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir as a defendant. That
complaint asserts a single cause of action against our subsidiary
formerly known as Mavenir for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty
relating to certain disclosures made to former Mavenir
shareholders in connection with the acquisition of Mavenir. None
of the complaints stated any amount of damages.

"On April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action entered
into a settlement term sheet which contemplates the settlement of
the consolidated action and the release of various persons and
entities, including but not limited to the Company and the
defendants in the consolidated action (including our subsidiary
formerly known as Mavenir), in consideration for which defendants
and their insurer(s) will cause the sum of $3 million to be paid
into a common fund for the class.

"Also on April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action
entered into a stipulation and proposed order regarding the
payment of mootness attorneys' fees to counsel for the plaintiffs
in the consolidated action, pertaining to certain claims mooted at
an earlier stage of the consolidated action.

"The Court of Chancery granted that proposed order on April 8,
2016. The parties to the consolidated action subsequently
negotiated a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement
and Release, which encompasses the terms contained in the term
sheet and was filed with the Court of Chancery on June 29, 2016.
The proposed settlement remains subject to the approval of the
Court of Chancery, which has scheduled a hearing for October 12,
2016 to consider the proposed settlement.

"Our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir has indemnified the
former directors of Mavenir who are defendants in the lawsuits. We
continue to believe that the allegations in all of the complaints
are without merit. Although we do not believe such litigation will
have a material impact on our financial condition or results of
operations, we cannot predict with certainty any such impact and
whether the Court of Chancery will approve the proposed settlement
of the consolidated action or the outcome of such litigation."


NEW YORK: SCA Faces Clean Suit Over Alleged Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Earth Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority,
and John Does 1-10 and other similarly situated, Case No.
704008/2016 (N.Y, Sup. Ct., August 15, 2016), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged breach of contract specifically by failing to
pay the Plaintiff for the soil transportation, remediation and
disposal work and services used for a project at or in connection
with PS #343, 1 Peck Slip Station, New York, NY 11101.

The New York City School Construction Authority (SCA) manages the
design, construction and renovation of school facilities in New
York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter M. Kutil, Esq.
      KING & KING, LLP
      Sanborn Map Building
      629 Fifth Avenue
      Pelham, NY 10803
      Telephone: (914) 380-5970
      E-mail: pkutil@King-King-Law.com


NOLAN ENTERPRISES: "Matos" Sues Over Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------
Edwin Matos, Plaintiff, v. Nolan Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Quality
Towing Scott Nolan, Kimberly Nolan And John Does 1-5 and 6-10,
Defendants, Case No. L-2914-16, (N.J. Sup., August 8, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit,
attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees and any other relief
pursuant to New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Defendants operate a towing company where Plaintiff was employed.
The Plaintiff alleges that he constantly received racially abusive
commentary from Kimberly Nolan, as aided and abetted by Scott
Nolan.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Tel: (856) 727-9700


OFFICE DEPOT: $3.53-Mil. Accord in "Heitzenrater" Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, 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 a court has approved in
final form the $3.53 million settlement of the case, Heitzenrater
v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al.

Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant
store managers ("ASMs") as exempt employees. OfficeMax vigorously
defended itself in this lawsuit and in November 2015 reached a
settlement in the amount of $3.53 million which the court approved
in final form in June 2016. This case has been dismissed.

Further, Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., formerly known as
Constance Gibbons v. Office Depot, Inc., a putative class action
that was instituted in May 2012, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges that Office Depot's use of the fluctuating workweek method
of pay was unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed
weekly salary and failed to provide its ASMs with a clear and
mutual understanding notification that they would receive a fixed
weekly salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs seek unpaid
overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The Company
believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable
losses in this case and such amounts are not material. However, in
light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty
of litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible range of loss in this matter. Office Depot intends to
vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit.


PETE'S LAWN: Faces "Becerra" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilario Becerra individually and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Pete's Lawn Care, Inc.
and Peter Lonosky Individually, Defendants, Case No: 1:16-cv-07887
(N.D. Ill., August 5, 2016), seeks redress for Defendants' alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Pete's Lawn Care Inc. -- http://www.peteslawncare.com/-- provides
outdoor needs services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PETROQUEST ENERGY: Suit Over February Debt Exchange Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Petroquest Energy, 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 a class action lawsuit relating to the Company's
February 2016 debt exchange.

In May 2016, a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the
Company's 10% Senior Notes due 2017 (the "2017 Notes") was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
relating to the Company's February 2016 debt exchange, whereby the
Company privately exchanged a combination of cash, shares of the
Company's common stock and newly issued 10% Second Lien Senior
Secured Notes due 2021 (the "2021 Notes") for the 2017 Notes. The
lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act
of 1939, the indenture governing the 2017 Notes and the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing by benefiting itself and a
minority of noteholders who are qualified institutional buyers
("QIBs"). According to the lawsuit, as a result of the Company's
private debt exchange in which only QIBs (and non-U.S. persons
under Regulation S) were eligible to participate, the Company
unjustly enriched itself at the expense of class members by
reducing indebtedness, extending the maturity date of its long
term debt and reducing the value of the 2017 Notes. The lawsuit
seeks damages and attorney's fees, in addition to declaratory
relief that the debt exchange and the liens created for the
benefit of the 2021 Notes are null and void and that the debt
exchange effectively resulted in a default under the indenture for
the 2017 Notes.


PINNACLE SERVICES: Faces "Farr" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REX FARR, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, v.
PINNACLE SERVICES, INC., Case No: 1:16-cv-00119-SPW-CSO (D. Mont.,
August 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pinnacle Services, Inc. operates solid waste landfills that
dispose of contaminated material from oil field sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip McGrady, Esq.
     MCGRADY LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 40
     Park City, MT 59063
     Phone: 406-322-8647
     Fax: 406-324-8313
     E-mail: philip@mcgradylawfirm.com


PLS CHECK: Faces "Rangel" Class Suit Over Violations of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
PEARL RANGEL, as an individual, and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated v. PLS CHECK CASHERS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
California corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-06119 (C.D. Cal.,
August 15, 2016), accuses the Defendant of violating the minimum
wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

PLS Check Cashers of California, Inc., is a California corporation
and the owner and operator of an industry, business and facility
licensed to do business and actually doing business in the state
of California and nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Atoy Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  tallen@mahoney-law.net
                  awilson@mahoney-law.net


PNC FINANCIAL: Interchange Case to Resume in District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, 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
Interchange class action litigation is expected to resume in the
district court after the court of appeals reversed approval of a
settlement and remanded for further proceedings.

In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reached a decision on the appeal of the approval of a settlement
of the antitrust lawsuits pending against Visa(R), MasterCard(R),
and several major financial institutions, including cases naming
National City (since merged into PNC) and its subsidiary, National
City Bank of Kentucky (since merged into National City Bank which
in turn was merged into PNC Bank, N.A.), that have been
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Antitrust
Litigation (Master File No. 1:05-md-1720-JG-JO). In its decision,
the court of appeals reversed approval of the settlement and
remanded for further proceedings. As a result, the class
litigation is expected to resume in the district court.

                            *     *     *

Meanwhile, Wells Fargo & Company said in its quarterly report on
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that
the Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wachovia Corporation are
named as defendants, separately or in combination, in putative
class actions filed on behalf of a plaintiff class of merchants
and in individual actions brought by individual merchants with
regard to the interchange fees and certain rules associated with
Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions. These actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. Visa, MasterCard and several banks and bank
holding companies are named as defendants in various of these
actions. The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims
against defendants based on alleged violations of federal and
state antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive
relief. Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard and
payment card issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange
rates. Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services
offered to merchants are anticompetitive. Wells Fargo and
Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities, are parties to
Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide that they,
along with other entities, will share, based on a formula, in any
losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class actions and reached a separate settlement in principle of
the consolidated individual actions. The settlement payments to be
made by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual
actions totaled approximately $6.6 billion before reductions
applicable to certain merchants opting out of the settlement.

The class settlement also provided for the distribution to class
merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all
credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months.
The District Court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by settlement
objector merchants. Other merchants opted out of the settlement
and are pursuing several individual actions.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
settlement agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated
action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for further proceedings.


PNC FINANCIAL: Case Settlement Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, 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 an
appeal of the approval of the settlement in the lender placed
insurance litigation filed by an objector has been voluntarily
dismissed, as a result of which the case has been concluded.

In February 2014, a class action lawsuit (Montoya, et al. v. PNC
Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-20474-JEM)) was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
PNC Bank, American Security Insurance Company (ASIC), a provider
of property and casualty insurance to PNC for certain residential
mortgages, and its parent, Assurant, Inc. relating to the
administration of PNC Bank's program for placement of insurance
for borrowers who fail to obtain hazard insurance coverages
required by the terms of their mortgages. In their complaint, the
plaintiffs asserted breach of contract by PNC, breach of its duty
of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of a
fiduciary duty, and violations of Florida and New Jersey statutes
pertaining to deceptive and unfair trade practices. They also
asserted claims under the federal TILA and RICO statutes. The
plaintiffs sought a nationwide class on all claims except the
state law statutory claims, for which they sought to certify
subclasses of Florida and New Jersey residents, respectively. The
plaintiffs sought, among other things, damages (including treble
damages), disgorgement of "unjust benefits," injunctive relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.

PNC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2014. In August
2014, the court granted in part and denied in part PNC's motion to
dismiss. Specifically, the court dismissed the breach of contract,
Florida deceptive and unfair trade practices, and federal TILA and
RICO claims, although it allowed the RICO claims to be re-pled.
The remaining claims were state claims for breach of the covenant
of good faith, unjust enrichment, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, and breach of fiduciary duty. Thereafter, in September 2014,
a third amended complaint was filed.

In October 2014, PNC moved to partially dismiss the third amended
complaint. The motion to dismiss sought dismissal of the re-
pleaded RICO claims and a state law claim for breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary
duty. At the same time, PNC also moved to strike nationwide class
allegations with respect to the state law claims. Shortly
thereafter, the plaintiffs stipulated to this relief, as a result
of which the plaintiffs' state law claims were brought solely as
statewide class action claims in the states in which the
plaintiffs reside. In January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification. In March 2015, the court denied PNC's
motion to dismiss, except that it granted the motion as to the
state law good faith and fair dealing claim.

In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle this case
on a nationwide settlement class basis. In connection with the
settlement agreement, the plaintiffs also filed a fourth amended
complaint, which, among other things, added claims regarding wind
and flood insurance. The settlement provided for certification of
a class of borrowers who were charged by PNC under a hazard,
flood, flood gap or wind only lender placed insurance policy for
residential property during the period January 1, 2008 through the
date of preliminary approval of the settlement. The court granted
final approval of the settlement in April 2016. An appeal of this
approval filed by an objector has been voluntarily dismissed, as a
result of which the case has been concluded. The overall cost of
the settlement has been reflected in PNC's reserves and will not
be material to PNC.


POLYCOM INC: "Solak" Lawsuit in N.D. Cal. Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Polycom, 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 Solak class action
lawsuit has been dismissed as a result of the Company's
transaction with Mitel being terminated.

Following the announcement of the execution of the merger
agreement with Mitel Networks Corporation, a purported stockholder
class action, styled Solak v. Leav, et al., No. 5:16-cv-03128-HRL,
was filed on June 8, 2016 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, which is referred to as the
Solak complaint. The Solak complaint named as defendants current
and former members of the Polycom Board, Mitel, and the merger
sub, which are collectively referred to as the defendants. The
Solak complaint alleged that the defendants violated Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by
failing to disclose all material information in connection with
the proxy statement/prospectus related to the Mitel transaction.

The Solak complaint also alleged that the current and former
members of the Polycom Board violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by acting as control persons of Polycom in connection
with the purported omissions from the proxy statement/prospectus.
Finally, the Solak complaint alleged that the current and former
members of the Polycom Board breached their fiduciary duties to
Polycom's stockholders in connection with the merger and that
Mitel and its merger sub aided and abetted the purported breaches
of fiduciary duty.

In support of these claims, the Solak complaint alleged, among
other things, that the Polycom Board failed to disclose all
material information regarding the merger, that the merger
consideration undervalued Polycom, that the sales process that
resulted in entry into the merger agreement was flawed, and that
the merger agreement contained unreasonable deal protection
devices that purportedly preclude competing offers and unduly
favor Mitel. The action sought injunctive relief, including
enjoining or rescinding the merger, and an award of other
unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to
other relief.

As a result of the transaction with Mitel being terminated and
Polycom's entry into the merger agreement with an entity
affiliated with Siris, the suit was dismissed.


POLYCOM INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
---------------------------------------------------------
Polycom, 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 scheduled a
hearing for August 2016 to consider final approval of the
settlement in the "Neil" and "Nathanson" class action lawsuits.

On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially
captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC,
and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint
alleged that, between January 20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements or
failed to disclose information regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its
former Chief Executive Officer's expense submissions and the
Company's internal controls. The lawsuit further alleged that the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading. The amended complaint alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

On April 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims against Polycom
and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed a
second complaint on May 4, 2015. Polycom and the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on June
26, 2015.

On January 8, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement.
The proposed settlement is subject to, and contingent upon, the
Court's review and approval. The lead plaintiff moved for
preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court has issued an
order preliminarily approving the settlement and has scheduled a
hearing for August 2016 to consider final approval of the
settlement.  If the settlement is approved, the settlement payment
will be made by Polycom's insurance carrier.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Investment Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric 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 an appeal
in the so-called Trojan investment recovery class actions remains
pending.

In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and
sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs
in a general rate case filing with the OPUC. In 1995, the OPUC
issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of,
and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in
Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE
to provide refunds of $33 million, including interest, which were
completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by
the Oregon Court of Appeals in February 2013 and by the Oregon
Supreme Court (OSC) in October 2014.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in
Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court) against PGE on behalf
of two classes of electric service customers. The class action
lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a
result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers,
of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the OSC issued a ruling ordering the abatement of
the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that the OPUC had
primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could be
offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for
any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company
collected in prices.

The OSC further stated that if the OPUC determined that it could
provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class action
proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The OSC added
that, if the OPUC determined that it could provide a remedy, the
court system may have a role to play. The OSC also ruled that the
plaintiffs retained the right to return to the Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remained unresolved from the
remanded OPUC proceedings. In October 2006, the Circuit Court
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the OSC.

In June 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court
lifted the abatement and in July 2015, the Circuit Court heard
oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment.
Following oral argument on PGE's motion for summary judgment, the
plaintiffs moved to amend the complaints. PGE opposed the request
to amend. On February 22, 2016, the Circuit Court denied the
plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and on March 16, 2016,
the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims by
the plaintiffs.

On April 14, 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court
dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon.

PGE believes that the October 2, 2014 OSC decision and the recent
Circuit Court decisions have reduced the risk of a loss to the
Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and
discussed. However, because the class actions remain subject to
appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that
such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve
unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential
outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to
determine the amount of any such loss.


PTC THERAPEUTICS: 3 Securities Class Suits Pending in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
PTC Therapeutics, 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 three purported securities class action lawsuits.

The Company said, "In March 2016, three purported securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (one each on March 3, 10, and 11),
naming as defendants the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, and
our Chief Financial Officer, captioned, respectively, as Hong Wang
v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01224, Kevin Kosin v.
PTC Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01383, and Daniel Parker
v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01384. The lawsuits,
which have been consolidated, allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
the Company about its business, operations, and prospects as it
relates to the NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD that
the Company submitted to the FDA in December 2015. The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, compensatory damages for purchasers of
the Company's common stock between May 6, 2014 and February 29,
2016, as well as attorneys' fees and costs."


QUEEN STUCCO: Faces "Hopson" Suit Seeking Relief Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shane Hopson v. Queen Stucco, Inc., and Kelly Queen, Case No.
2:16-cv-00782-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio, August 11, 2016), is a
collective action brought against the Defendants seeking all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Queen Stucco Inc. is an Ohio for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in the Southern District of Ohio.  QSI
is a stucco and stone contractor and construction company.  Kelly
Queen is the chief executive officer of QSI.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


QUILTING DELIGHTS: Wilder Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARI WILDER, both in her individual capacity and, in addition, as
a collective action on behalf of others similarly situated v. THEA
D. JIRAK, an individual, and QUILTING DELIGHTS, L.L.C., a
dissolved Oregon limited liability company doing business as
Quilting Delights, Case No. 3:16-cv-01652-SB (D. Or., August 15,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages
and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Quilting Delights L.L.C. is a dissolved Oregon limited liability
company that, at all material times, was and is doing business in
Oregon as Quilting Delights, with Defendant Thea D. Jirak as its
only listed member.  The Defendants provides quilting and sewing
goodies, including fabrics, patterns, top quality batiks and
cottons, quilting and embroidery supplies and project kits,
threads, needles and machine parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, PC
          547 Fifth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
          Telephone: (503) 697-3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311-5629
          E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


RALPHS GROCERY: Perez Sues for Retaliation & Illegal Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO PEREZ, an individual; Represented PAGA Claimants v. RALPHS
GROCERY COMPANY, an OHIO CORPORATION, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
Inclusive, Case No. BC630270 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
August 11, 2016), accuses the Defendants of retaliation and
wrongful termination, in violation of the California Labor Code.

Ralphs Grocery Company is a California corporation doing business
in the County of Los Angeles in California from various locations.
The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julia Aparicio-Mercado, Esq.
          APARICIO-MERCADO LAW, L.C.
          3320 West Victory Boulevard
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (818) 260-9904
          Facsimile: (818)450-0964


RELYPSA INC: Morales Sues Over Proposed $1.53BB Sale to Galenica
----------------------------------------------------------------
SERVANDO MORALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RELYPSA, INC., DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN, JOHN P. BUTLER,
PAUL J. HASTINGS, KENNETH J. HILLAN, DAVID W. J. McGIRR, JOHN A.
ORWIN, THOMAS J. SCHUETZ, and HELEN TORLEY, Case No. 3:16-cv-04684
(N.D. Cal., August 15, 2016), alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition
of Relypsa by Galenica AG, and Vifor Pharma USA Inc.

On July 21, 2016, Relypsa and Galenica jointly announced that they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that will
culminate in Galenica, through Merger Sub, acquiring all of the
outstanding shares of Relypsa through an all-cash tender offer.
Under the terms of the merger agreement, Relypsa public
stockholders will receive $32 in cash for every share of Relypsa
common stock held, for an approximate aggregate value of $1.53
billion.

Mr. Morales contends that the Defendants failed to disclose all
material information necessary for Relypsa stockholders to make an
informed decision regarding the Proposed Acquisition.
Specifically, he alleges, the Recommendation Statement omits and
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things,
the background of the Proposed Acquisition, and the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation exercises that
purportedly support the so-called "fairness opinions" provided by
Relypsa's financial advisors, Centerview Partners LLC and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated.

Relypsa is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Redwood City, California.  Relypsa is a
biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery,
development, and commercialization of polymeric medicines for
patients with conditions that are overlooked and undertreated and
can be addressed in the gastrointestinal tract, and operates
primarily in the United States.  The Company offers Veltassa
(patiromer), a non-absorbed potassium binding polymer for the
treatment of hyperkalemia.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Non-Defendant Galenica is a Swiss company with principal offices
located in Bern, Switzerland.  Galenica is the owner of
Switzerland's largest pharmacy network, and manufactures and
distributes pharmaceuticals and other related services.  Galenica
produces prescription and over-the-counter drugs, toiletries and
hygiene products, and operates pharmacies.  Merger Sub is a
Delaware Corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Galenica
created for the sole purpose of effectuating the Proposed
Acquisition.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


RITECORP ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued Pursuant to FLSA, Col. Wage Act
------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF COLDWELL, and ISAAC MERTENS, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. RITECORP ENVIRONMENTAL PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS, a Colorado corporation, formerly d/b/a PESTRITE, and
ESG ACHIEVEMENT, INC., a Utah corporation, Case No: 1:16-cv-01998-
NYW (D. Col., August 5, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

RITECORP ENVIRONMENTAL PROPERTY SOLUTIONS --
http://www.ritecorp.com/-- offers pest solutions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     R. Bret Beattie, Esq.
     Alexandra M. Bellanti, Esq.
     Mark Fenton, Esq.
     THE BRET BEATTIE LAW FIRM, LLC
     7200 S. Alton Way, Suite A-120
     Centennial, CO 80112
     Phone: 720-708-3275
     Fax: 720-708-3268
     E-mail: bret@bretbeattielawfirm.com;
             abellanti@bretbeattielawfirm.com;
             mfenton@firepowerlaw.com


SACRAMENTO BEE: Sole Defendant in Carriers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy 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 26, 2016, that the Company has been
dismissed from a class action lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee
as the sole defendant.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action
lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior Court of the
State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra v. The
McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers were
misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage
reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit,
Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was
filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the
Superior Court of the State of California in Sacramento County.
The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento
case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both
cases are seeking unspecified restitution for mileage
reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento case, in September
2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only
remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement
under the California Civil Code. In the Fresno case, in March
2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only
remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement
under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the
third phase will address restitution, if any.

On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.

"We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately
adopted it as final. The court has not yet established a date for
the second and third phases of trial concerning whether The
Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in the class for mileage
reimbursement or owes any restitution," the Company said.

In June 2016, The McClatchy Company was dismissed from the
lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant.

The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second
phase was designated to address restitution, if any. The first
phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2014 and concluded in late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the
court in the Fresno case issued a statement of decision granting
judgment in favor of us and The Fresno Bee.


SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS: Court Rules Class Cert. in "Alexander" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GLORIA ALEXANDER, individually and/or on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SAFEGUARD
OPERATIONS LLC; and SAFEGUARD STORAGE PROPERTIES, LLC d.b.a.
SAFEGUARD SELF STORAGE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-06061-
AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Ann M. Donnelly entered an order:

     1. preliminary approving parties' stipulation of Settlement
        and Release;

     2. granting preliminary certification of the following class
        for settlement purposes only:

          "all persons who were employed by Safeguard, in the
          State of New York as Store Managers and/or Assistant
          Managers between October 31, 2007 and August 17, 2016";
          and

     3. approving the Law office of Christopher Q. Davis, PLLC,
        as Class Counsel for the class and collective actions.

The entry of the order is without prejudice to the Defendants'
right to oppose certification of a class in the action, and/or to
seek decertification or medication of a class should the proposed
Settlement Agreement not become final.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jrmY2z4l


SAFETY-KLEEN: 62 Product Liability Cases Pending as of June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, 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 Safety-Kleen has been
named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are currently
pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout the United
States, including approximately 62 proceedings (excluding cases
which have been settled but not formally dismissed) as of June 30,
2016, wherein persons claim personal injury resulting from the use
of Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment or cleaning products.
These proceedings typically involve allegations that the solvent
used in Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment contains
contaminants and/or that Safety-Kleen's recycling process does not
effectively remove the contaminants that become entrained in the
solvent during their use. In addition, certain claimants assert
that Safety-Kleen failed to warn adequately the product user of
potential risks, including an historic failure to warn that
solvent contains trace amounts of toxic or hazardous substances
such as benzene.

Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide
coverage for these product liability claims (over amounts accrued
for self-insured retentions and deductibles in certain limited
cases), except for punitive damages to the extent not insurable
under state law or excluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen
also believes that these claims lack merit and has historically
vigorously defended, and intends to continue to vigorously defend,
itself and the safety of its products against all of these claims.
Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are
not predictable with assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is
unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary
liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of
June 30, 2016. From January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016, 14 product
liability claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of
these claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur
any expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full
for all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar,
additional lawsuits in the future, including claims for which
insurance coverage may not be available.

Safety-Kleen, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.


SEMPRA ENERGY: 181 Gas Leak Suits Filed as of July 28
-----------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern
California Gas Company 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 in connection with the
natural gas leak at the Aliso Canyon storage facility, as of July
28, 2016, 181 lawsuits have been filed against SoCalGas, some of
which have also named Sempra Energy, and in derivative and
securities law claims on behalf of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas,
against certain officers and directors of Sempra Energy and/or
SoCalGas.

All of these cases, other than the derivative and securities law
claims, are coordinated before a single court in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court for pretrial management. Pursuant to the
parties' agreement, the court ordered that the individual and
business entity plaintiffs would proceed by filing two
consolidated master complaints, one for the individual tort cases,
and a second for the class action cases.

On July 25, 2016, the individuals and business entities asserting
tort claims filed a Consolidated Case Complaint for Individual
Actions through which their separate lawsuits will be managed for
pretrial purposes. In addition, the Los Angeles City Attorney and
Los Angeles County Counsel have also filed a complaint on behalf
of the people of the State of California against SoCalGas for
public nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law.

The California Attorney General, acting in her independent
capacity and on behalf of the people of the State of California
and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), joined that
existing lawsuit. The complaint, as amended, includes allegations
of violations of certain California Health and Safety Code and
California Government Code sections. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) also filed a complaint against
SoCalGas seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of several
nuisance-related statutory provisions arising from the leak and
delays in stopping the leak.

On February 2, 2016, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas seeking
penalties and other remedies for alleged failure to provide timely
notice of the leak pursuant to California Health and Safety Code
section 25510(a), Los Angeles County Code section 12.56.030, and
Title 19 California Code of Regulations section 2703(a), and for
violating California Health and Safety Code section 41700
prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to
the public. On February 16, 2016, SoCalGas pled not guilty to the
complaint. No trial date has been set.


SENIOR LIVING: Faces "White" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE WHITE, on his own behalf and others similarly situated,
v. SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case 8:16-cv-02057-JSM-
TBM (M.D. Fla., July 18, 2016) , seeks recovery of alleged unpaid
wages, retaliation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Senior Living Management Corporation (SLMC), based in South
Florida operates 23 licensed senior living residences within
Florida, Georgia and Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John W. Gadd, Esq.
     BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING
     2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
     Clearwater, FL 33762
     Phone: (727) 524-6300
     E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


SEQUENOM INC: Malkoff Challenges Proposed $2.5BB Sale to LabCorp
----------------------------------------------------------------
TODD MALKOFF, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. SEQUENOM, INC., KENNETH F. BUECHLER, MYLA LAI-GOLDMAN,
RICHARD A. LERNER, RONALD M. LINDSAY, DAVID PENDARVIS, CATHERINE
J. MACKEY, CHARLES P. SLACIK, and DIRK VAN DEN BOOM, Case No.
3:16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., August 15, 2016), is brought on
behalf of the public stockholders of Sequenom alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 27, 2016, the Company announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement by which Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings through its wholly owned subsidiary Savoy Acquisition
Corporation, would commence a tender offer to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Sequenom for $2.40 per share in cash.  The
Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $2.5 billion.

Mr. Malkoff contends that the Defendants solicit stockholder
approval of the Sale through a recommendation statement that omits
to state material facts necessary to make the statements therein
not false or misleading.  He asserts that stockholders need this
material information to decide whether to tender their shares or
pursue their appraisal rights.

Sequenom is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Diego,
California.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.  Sequenom develops diagnostic products and
services, including molecular genetic tests to provide early
patient management information for obstetricians, geneticists, and
maternal fetal medicine specialists.

LabCorp, a non-party, is a healthcare diagnostics company.
LabCorp provides clinical laboratory and drug development
services, as well as diagnostic solutions.  Merger Sub is a
Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of LabCorp, and a
party to the Merger Agreement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam McCall, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 985-7890
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: amccall@zlk.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337-1567
          E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com


SHINOLA: Faces "Huber" Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Shinola/Detroit, LLC. The case is
titled Christine Huber, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Shinola/Detroit, LLC and Bedrock
Manufacturing Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06465-
LAK (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Lewis A.
Kaplan.

Shinola is a store selling American luxury lifestyle brand
including watches and bicycles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Ave., Ste 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576 1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576 1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


SHIVA ESTATE: "Jaffer" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
FATIMA JAFFER, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, v.
SHIVA ESTATE, Inc., Case No: 8:16-cv-02248-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
August 5, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Shiva Estate, Inc. is a property dealer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. John Gadd, Esq.
     BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING
     2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
     Clearwater, FL 33762
     Phone: (727) 524-6300
     E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


SIN DULCE BAKERY: Faces "Quintanilla" Suit S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sin Dulce Bakery Corporation. The
case is entitled Jose R. Quintanilla, himself and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sin Dulce Bakery
Corporation and Rodolfo O. Perez, the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-
06445 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2016).

Sin Dulce is in the retail bakeries industry in Yonkers, NY.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SOLARCITY CORP: Hides Declining Demand on Products, Mueller Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOERG MUELLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SOLARCITY CORPORATION, LYNDON R. RIVE, BRAD W. BUSS,
and TANGUY SERRA, Case No. 5:16-cv-04686-LHK (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15,
2016), is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired SolarCity securities between May 5, 2015, and Feb. 9,
2016, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

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 contends,
the Defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose: (1) that demand for the Company's products was
weakening; (2) that the Company was concealing the weakening
demand from investors; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the Defendants' statements about SolarCity's business, operations,
and prospects, were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable
basis.

SolarCity is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in San Mateo, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  SolarCity
provides solar energy systems for commercial and residential use.
The Company sells solar energy systems directly to customers, and
offers financing.  SolarCity also sells solar power lease
contracts, whereby the Company absorbs the cost of the solar
panels and installation, but charges the customer for the power
produced by the solar energy system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Wagner, Esq.
          THE WAGNER FIRM
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 491-7949
          Facsimile: (310) 694-3967
          E-mail: avi@thewagnerfirm.com


SONIYA HOTEL: Faces "Balczyrak-Lichosyt" Suit Seeking OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriela Balczyrak-Lichosyt, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Soniya Hotel LLC and Harshad Mistry a/k/a
"Harry Mistry," Case No: 2:16-cv-04386 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2016),
was brought to remedy alleged overtime violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and various violations of the New York Labor
Law, including overtime, delayed wages, spread of hours, wage
statement, and wage notice violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven John Moser, Esq.
     STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C.
     3 School Street, Suite 207B
     Glen Cove, NY 11542
     Phone: (516) 671-1150
     Fax: (516) 882-5420
     E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


SOUNDEXCHANGE INC: Marie Sues to Collect Copyright Act Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHASTITY MARIE, STEPHANIE MARIE, JON BLONDELL, GARY ECKERT, ROSANA
ECKERT, DAN MUNIZZI, & CLAYTON PRITCHARD v. SOUNDEXCHANGE, INC.
AND AFM & SAG-AFTRA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DISTRIBUTION
FUND, Case No. 3:16-cv-02329-G (N.D. Tex., Aug. 11, 2016), seeks
to recover royalties under the Copyright Act.

The Case is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated studio musicians and vocalists, who
were not or are not members of AFM or SAG-AFTRA, or who performed
on non-union recordings, alleging that the Defendants have
breached their statutory and fiduciary duties by failing to
properly identify and pay the class members certain royalties to
which they are entitled under the Copyright Act, as amended by the
Audio Home Recording Act, the Digital Performance Right in Sound
Recordings Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of
1998 and the implementing regulations.

SoundExchange is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Washington, D.C.  AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property
Rights Distribution Fund is an organization established under
Section 501c(6) of the Internal Revenue Code by the American
Federation of Musicians ("AFM") and the Screen Actors Guild-
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists ("SAG-AFTRA").
The Fund's headquarters are located in Valley Village, California.

The Defendants regularly collect royalties as a result of digital
transmissions within the Northern District of Texas and distribute
royalties to musicians and singers within this judicial district.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Zukoski, Esq.
          James H. Birch, Esq.
          Peter A. Moir, Esq.
          QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT AND MOSER, P.C.
          2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 871-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 871-2111
          E-mail: ezukoski@qslwm.com
                  jbirch@qslwm.com
                  pmoir@qslwm.com


SR-73 AND LAKESIDE: Schaefer Sues Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALISON SCHAEFER v. SR-73 AND LAKESIDE AVENUE OPERATIONS LLC,
POWERBACK REHABILITATION and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. L-
2944-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., Camden Cty., August 11, 2016), was filed
under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination alleging
disability and perception of disability discrimination and
retaliation.  Claim is also brought under the Family & Medical
Leave Act for unlawful retaliation.

SR-73 and Lakeside Avenue Operations LLC is an entity conducting
business in Voorhees, Camden County, New Jersey.  Power Back
Rehabilitation is an entity conducting business also in Voorhees.
The Doe Defendants are currently unidentified.  The Defendants
previously employed the Plaintiff as a full-time Speech Language
Pathologist.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700


STAAR SURGICAL: Still Defends "Todd" Action in C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend against the case, Todd v. STAAR, after the court denied a
motion to dismiss.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The
plaintiff claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and
omitted material information from our investors between February
27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at
STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing facility.

On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed
two Company officers, added one other officer, reduced the alleged
Class Period to November 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, and
demanded compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

On September 21, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On April 12, 2016, the court denied the motion
to dismiss.

Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined
with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the
Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself against this lawsuit. The Company has not recorded
any loss or accrual in the accompanying condensed consolidated
financial statements at July 1, 2016 and January 1, 2016 for this
matter as the likelihood and amount of loss, if any, has not been
determined and is not currently estimable.


STEVE MADDEN: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Over Sexual Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Mitchell v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc., Mary Kontos and
John Does 1-5 and 6-1, Case No. L-2981-16 (N.J. Sup. Ct., August
15, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
New Jersey Law against discrimination, and alleges sexual
harassment and retaliation.

The Defendants operate a shoe retail company located at 5216
Barnett Ave, Long Island City, NY 11104.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (856) 727-9700


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Michael W. Kincaid Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL W. KINCAID, DDS, INC. DBA RIVERSIDE FAMILY DENTAL GROUP
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, Case No. 2:16-cv-00790-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio,
August 15, 2016), alleges that Defendant has sent an extensive
number of junk faxes to the Plaintiff and other individuals and
businesses, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Michael W. Kincaid, DDS, Inc., doing business as Riverside Family
Dental Group, is a private dental practice with multiple
locations.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Synchrony Financial
operates as a consumer financial services company. The Company
provides a range of credit products through programs we have
established with a diverse group of national and regional
retailers, local merchants, manufacturers, buying groups, industry
associations, and healthcare service providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Ave, Third Floor
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com


TC PIPELINES: Class Action Appeal to be Heard in Late-2016
----------------------------------------------------------
TC PipeLines, LP 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 on the
dismissal of the case, Employees Retirement System of the City of
St. Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al., is expected to be
heard in late-2016.

On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership
filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (Chancery Court) against the General Partner,
TransCanada American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and
the Partnership as a nominal defendant.

The complaint alleges direct and derivative claims for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
aiding and abetting breach of contract, and tortious interference
in connection with the 2015 GTN Acquisition, including the
issuance by the Partnership of $95 million in Class B Units and
amendments to the Partnership Agreement to provide for the
issuance of the Class B Units.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of
Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries,
disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner,
TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the
Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to
the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees.

To the extent the claims are derivative, the Partnership would be
the beneficiary of any monetary award.  The Partnership does not
expect legal fees or the impact of the decision on plaintiffs'
other requests to be material.

In April 2016, the Chancery Court granted the Partnership and
other defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.
The plaintiff has appealed the decision to dismiss its claims.
The appeal is expected to be heard in late-2016.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: DeKalb County Files Appeal in U.S. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
DeKalb County Pension Fund, On Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Petitioner v. Transocean Ltd., et al., the
Appellee, Case No. 16-206 (U.S., Aug. 15, 2016), is an appeal
filed before the United States Supreme Court, from a lower court
decision in Case No. 14-0894-cv (2nd Cir., Mar. 17, 2016).

Transocean Ltd. is one of the world's largest offshore drilling
contractors and is based in Vernier, Switzerland.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          David C. Frederick, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN,
          TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326 7900
          E-mail: dfrederick@khhte.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Mendlowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems, Inc. The case
is styled Blimie Mendlowitz, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Transworld
Systems, Inc., doing business as North Shore Agency, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04551 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2016).

Transworld provides debt collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRINET GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Welgus" Suit Pending in N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, 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's motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit by Howard Welgus remains pending.

On or about August 7, 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder
of the Company, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit
arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
case has not been certified as a class action, although it
purports to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive.
The name of the case is Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc. et al. No
stockholder other than Mr. Welgus submitted a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff to represent the putative class,
and, on December 3, 2015, the Court appointed Mr. Welgus as lead
plaintiff.

On February 1, 2016, Mr. Welgus filed an amended complaint.  The
defendants named in the case are the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, as well as General Atlantic, LLC, a
significant shareholder, and formerly majority shareholder, of the
Company.

Shortly before the scheduled date for the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, Mr. Welgus sought leave to
further amend the consolidated complaint. The amended complaint
was deemed filed by Mr. Welgus on April 1, 2016. The amended
complaint expanded the class period to March 27, 2014 through
February 29, 2016, and added as defendants the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering and additional directors of the
Company. The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company
and other defendants caused damage to purchasers of the Company's
stock by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose facts
generally pertaining to alleged trends affecting health insurance
and workers compensation claims.

On June 20, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. The Company believes that it
has meritorious defenses against this action and intends to
continue to defend itself vigorously against the allegations of
Mr. Welgus.


TRISTAR PLUMBING: Faces "Chen" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LI CHEN, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, v. TRISTAR PLUMBING SUPPLY INC., LONG RIVER
INTERNATIONAL GROUP (USA) INC., HAO YANG, LIN ZHI ZHONG, VICTOR
PENG, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" # 1-10 Case No: 1:16-cv-
04393(E.D.N.Y., August 6, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

TRISTAR PLUMBING SUPPLY is an Interstate DOT registered company
based in FLUSHING NY. The company operates 2 power units and 2
drivers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718.353.8588
     E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ULTIMATE INC: "Moran" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------
Luis Moran, an individual Plaintiff, v. Ultimate Inc., a
California corporation, Enrique Vera, an individual, Gloria Vera,
an individual and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case
No. BC629869 (Cal. Super., August 8, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, punitive damages, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code
and California Business and Professions Code.

Defendants allegedly forced their employees to pay fees to cash
their pay checks and failed to provide its employees with accurate
paystubs.

Defendant is a construction company owned by Enrique and Gloria
Vera based in Los Angeles, City of Paramount, CA where Plaintiff
was employed as a carpenter's assistant.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Choe, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY CHOE
      3700 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 788-4448
      Facsimile: (213) 788-4450


UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Matching Plan ERISA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER SWEDA, BENJAMIN A. WIGGINS, ROBERT L. YOUNG, FAITH
PICKERING, PUSHKAR SOHONI, AND REBECCA N. TONER, individually and
as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the University of Pennsylvania Matching Plan, v. THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA AND JACK HEUER, Case No: 2:16-cv-04329-
GEKP (E.D. Pa., August 1, 2016), alleges breach of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of the University of
Pennsylvania Matching Plan.

The University of Pennsylvania is a private, Ivy League university
located in Philadelphia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Promisloff, Esq.
     Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
     Jefferey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
     PROFY, PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO, P.C.
     100 N. 22nd Street, Unit 105
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 259-5156
     Fax: (215) 600-2642
     E-mail: david@prolawpa.com
             profy@prolawpa.com
             ciarlanto@prolawpa.com

        - and -

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
     Troy A. Doles, Esq.
     Heather Lea, Esq.
     Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
     Stephen M. Hoeplinger, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934


VASCO DATA: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------
VASCO Data Security International, 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
court has not made any rulings with respect to the appointment of
the lead plaintiff in a calss action lawsuit.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security
International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming
VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as
defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf
of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities
between February 18, 2014 and July 21, 2015, and seeks to recover
damages allegedly caused by the defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as
a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees.

Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the
court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to
file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead
plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. The defendants
will then have sixty days to answer or otherwise respond to the
operative complaint. To date, the court has not made any rulings
with respect to the appointment of the lead plaintiff.

Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously.


VECTREN CORPORATION: Court to Consider Summary Judgment Bid First
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vectren 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 court will not
consider the class certification issue until after the summary
judgment stage of the case.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims relate to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula.

On March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan and the Company in
federal district court requesting that a class be certified and
for various relief including that the Combined Plan be reformed
and benefits thereunder be recalculated.

The Company denied the allegations set forth in the Complaint and
moved to dismiss the case. In April 2016, the court dismissed part
of the compliant but allowed the remaining claims to proceed. The
court will not consider the class certification issue until after
the summary judgment stage of the case.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: $9-Mil. Settlement Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, 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 Court has
granted final approval of the $9 million settlement of the
securities litigation.

On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative securities class action
suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, its board of directors, a former director and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.

On November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re
Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on September 19, 2014.   The consolidated complaint
named certain current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering and alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on allegedly false and materially misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement for the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering and in
communications regarding its business and financial results. The
suit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between March 28, 2012 and May 2, 2013, and
sought compensatory damages, rescission, fees and costs, as well
as other relief.

On November 3, 2014 Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On February 11, 2015, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims, but denied the motion
as to the Exchange Act claims, allowing the matter to proceed on
that basis. On April 27, 2015 Defendants filed answers to the
consolidated complaint.

A mediation in October 2015 resulted in an agreement in principle
to settle the suit. On March 4, 2016, the Court issued an order
granting Lead Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement. The settlement, which calls for payment of $9 million,
was funded entirely by the Company's insurance carriers. On July
29, 2016, the court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement and entering judgment.


VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Sued Over "Defective" Timing Chain
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENA STOCKALPER, DAWN STANTON BLANCHARD, JAY MELMAN, CHRIS DRAKE,
ANOUSHIRVAN NADIRI, JENNIFER PIUMARTA, WILLIAM R. SWIHART, HANNAH
LeMOINE, RAFAEL SERBIA, LUIS F. LOPEZ, SHIMELESSE MEKBEB, KATRINA
CALIHAN, ERIKA SENSNOVIS, JASON HOSIER, DEBRA ANN HAGGERTY, DEBRA
J. OLES, DAVID ZHAO, SUZANNE NOYES, HAMZA DEIB, ROSARIO PANEPINTO,
JAMES I. SCOTT IV, JEFFERY PIPE, PAMELA K. KANE and ZACHARIAH
GOSSMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC., AUDI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT and AUDI OF AMERICA, INC.,
Case 2:16-cv-04346 (D.N.J., July 18, 2016), was filed on behalf of
all persons in the United States who purchased, own, owned, lease
or leased a 2008 through 2013 model year 2.0L TSI or 2.0L TFSI VW
or Audi vehicle containing an alleged defective Timing Chain
System.

VWAG is one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world,
and is in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing,
and selling automobiles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: (973) 994-1700

        - and -

     Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
     Jay I. Brody, Esq.
     KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
     210 Summit Avenue
     Montvale, NJ 07645
     Phone: (201) 391-7000

        - and -

     Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
     Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
     Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
     Ethan Barlieb, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706

        - and -

     Thomas P. Sobran, Esq.
     THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C.
     7 Evergreen Lane
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Phone: (781) 741-6075


W&W LOGISTICS: Faces Tex. Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL COX and CHRISTOPHER WOOTEN, Individually and On Behalf of
All Similarly Situated Persons, v. W&W LOGISTICS, INC. and W & W
ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No: 7:16-cv-00289 (W.D. Tex., August
5, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs,
and attorney's fees owed to Plaintiffs.

W&W LOGISTICS, INC. is a freight forwarding/logistics company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
     MICHAEL COX AND CHRISTOPHER WOOTEN
     2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
     Houston, TX 77018
     Phone: 713-868-3388
     Fax: 713-683-9940
     E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


WAL-MART: "Stephan" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NJ Wage Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGET STEPHAN, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Case 2:16-cv-04363
(D.N.J., July 18, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendant sells goods, which are shipped to and from Wal-Marts
throughout the United States and globally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces "McIntosh" Suit Over Bottled Water Tax
-------------------------------------------------------------
Destin McIntosh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Case No. 2016CH10738
(Ill. Cir. Ct., August 15, 2016), alleges that the Defendant
improperly charges the Bottled Water Tax on sales of carbonated,
flavored and mineral water.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company which
operates the second largest chain in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph S. Siprut, Esq.
      Todd McLawhorn, Esq.
      Richard Wilson, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              tmclawhorn@siprut.com
              rwilson@siprut.com


WARDLAW CLAIMS: Pennington Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
RENATA PENNINGTON, JENNY BOULIGNY, and MONCHERIE CHAPMAN,
Individually and On Behalf All Others Similarly Situated v.
WARDLAW CLAIMS SERVICE, L.L.P. and WILLIAM WARDLAW, Case No. 3:16-
cv-02373-K (N.D. Tex., August 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, overtime compensation, litigation expenses, expert witness
fees, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, liquidated damages, applicable penalties, and
all other available remedies under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as amended.

Wardlaw Claims Service, L.L.P., is a Texas corporation.  Wardlaw
provides catastrophic and other insurance adjusting services to
insurance companies throughout the United States.  William Wardlaw
is a partner of the Company and was the Plaintiffs' supervisor
during the relevant time period.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 528-4455
          Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
          E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com


WHITEWAVE FOODS: McDonald Challenges Planned $10BB Sale to Danone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK McDONALD, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. THE WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY, GREGG L.
ENGLES, STEPHEN L. GREEN, MICHELLE GOOLSBY, JOSEPH S. HARDIN, JR.,
W. ANTHONY VERNON, ANTHONY J. MAGRO, and DOREEN A. WRIGHT, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02040-KLM (D. Colo., August 11, 2016), arises from the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Danone S.A., through its
newly formed Delaware company July Merger Sub, Inc., through a
merger transaction.

On July 6, 2016, the Company and Danone jointly announced that
they had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby
the Company will merge with and into Merger Sub, with the Company
surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danone.  The Merger was
unanimously approved and adopted by the Company's Board of
Directors.  Pursuant to the Merger, each issued and outstanding
share of the Company common stock will be cancelled and
automatically converted into the right to receive $56.25 in cash.
The total value of the Proposed Transaction is $10.1 billion.

WhiteWave is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Denver Colorado.  According to the Company's
SEC filings, it is a leading consumer packaged food and beverage
company focused on high-growth product categories that are aligned
with emerging consumer trends.  The Company manufactures, markets
and sells branded plant-based foods and beverages, coffee creamers
and beverages, premium dairy products and organic produce.  The
Company Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          BERENS LAW LLC
          2373 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 100
          Denver, CO 80238
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764
          Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
          E-mail: jeff@jberenslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                  gegleston@gme-law.com


XOMA CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Markette" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
XOMA 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 against the case, Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al.

On July 24, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al.
(Case No. 3:15-cv-3425) against the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Medical Officer.  The complaint asserts that
all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5,
by making materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21,
2015. The plaintiffs also allege that Messrs. Varian and Rubin
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 8,
2016 asserting the same claims and adding a former director as a
defendant.

Based on a review of the allegations, the Company believes that
the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does
not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material
adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an
unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations for the period in which such a loss is
recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.


YEN YEN: "Bravo" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ill. Wage Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Modesto Bravo, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Yen Yen
Restaurant, Inc., and John Moy, Defendants, Case No: 1:16-cv-07895
(N.D. Ill., August 5, 2016) seeks redress for Defendants' alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate two restaurants called Yen Yen Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raisa Alicea, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Ste. 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: (312) 800-1017
     E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *